Cited by 100Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

The smoker's health project: a self-determination theory intervention to facilitate maintenance of tobacco abstinence

Open access
Williams, Geoffrey C., Patrick, Heather, Niemiec, Christopher P., Ryan, Richard M., Deci, Edward L., Lavigne, Holly McGregor·2011·Contemporary Clinical Trials

Abstract

A previous randomized clinical trial based on self-determination theory (SDT) and consistent with the Public Health Service (PHS) Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence demonstrated that an intensive intervention could change autonomous self-regulation and perceived competence, which in part facilitated long-term tobacco abstinence. The current article describes a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of three SDT-based intensive tobacco-dependence interventions. Eligible participants are randomized to one of the three treatment conditions designed to facilitate long-term maintenance of tobacco abstinence, namely, Community Care (CC), which includes the 6 month SDT-based intervention previously shown to promote autonomous self-regulation, perceived competence, medication use, and tobacco abstinence; Extended Need Support (ENS), which extends the 6 month SDT-based intervention to 12 months and trains an important other to provide support for smokers' basic psychological needs; and Harm Reduction (HR), which provides extended need support and recommends medication use for participants who do not want to stop smoking completely within 30 days but who are willing to reduce their cigarette use by half. The primary outcome is 12 month prolonged abstinence from tobacco, which is assessed one year following termination of treatment (two years post-randomization). Secondary outcomes include 7- and 30 day point prevalence tobacco abstinence, number of days using smoking-cessation medication, change in autonomous self-regulation and perceived competence, and perceived need support from important others.

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 · 10.1016/j.cct.2011.03.002

Cites

60 of 60 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., 2011

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., Patrick, H., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Lavigne, H. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Venue
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
535-543
ISSN
1551-7144 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049701000
Cited by
100
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH059594)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA106668)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01 RR-00044, M01RR000044, UL1RR024160)
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
self-determination theory, smoking abstinence, smoking cessation, tobacco dependence, perceived competence, need support, harm reduction, smoking cessation medication, community-based care, maintenance therapy, comparative effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Clinical Protocols, Humans, Motivation, Psychological Theory, Health Behavior, Smoking Cessation, Personal Autonomy, Risk Reduction Behavior, Comparative Effectiveness Research

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