Cited by 383Smoking Behavior and CessationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Mindfulness training for smoking cessation: Results from a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Brewer, Judson A., Mallik, Sarah, Babuscio, Theresa A., Nich, Charla, Johnson, Hayley E., Deleone, Cameron M., Minnix-Cotton, Candace A., Byrne, Shannon A. +4 more·2011·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

Background Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the world, and long-term abstinence rates remain modest. Mindfulness training (MT) has begun to show benefits in a number of psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety and more recently, in addictions. However, MT has not been evaluated for smoking cessation through randomized clinical trials.Methods 88 treatment-seeking, nicotine-dependent adults who were smoking an average of 20cigarettes/day were randomly assigned to receive MT or the American Lung Association's freedom from smoking (FFS) treatment. Both treatments were delivered twice weekly over 4 weeks (eight sessions total) in a group format. The primary outcomes were expired-air carbon monoxide-confirmed 7-day point prevalence abstinence and number of cigarettes/day at the end of the 4-week treatment and at a follow-up interview at week 17.Results 88% of individuals received MT and 84% of individuals received FFS completed treatment. Compared to those randomized to the FFS intervention, individuals who received MT showed a greater rate of reduction in cigarette use during treatment and maintained these gains during follow-up (F=11.11, p=.001). They also exhibited a trend toward greater point prevalence abstinence rate at the end of treatment (36% vs. 15%, p=.063), which was significant at the 17-week follow-up (31% vs. 6%, p=.012).Conclusions This initial trial of mindfulness training may confer benefits greater than those associated with current standard treatments for smoking cessation.

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.drugalcdep.2011.05.027

Cites

96 of 96 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?

  • In smoking and emotional eating studies, mindfulness training decoupled craving from behavior, with a fivefold increase in smoking cessation and a 40% reduction in craving-related eating.

    “in studies of cigarette smoking and emotional eating, mindfulness training was found to mechanistically decouple cigarette or food craving from smoking or eating, with a subsequent fivefold increase in smoking cessation rates, and a 40% reduction in craving-related eating, respectively (Brewer et al., 2011; Elwafi, Witkiewitz, Mallik, Thornhill-IV, & Brewer, 2013; Ashley E. Mason, Jhaveri, Cohn, &”

    From Can Mindfulness Mechanistically Target Worry to Improve Sleep Disturbances? Theory and Study Protocol for App-Based Anxiety Program. (2020) · cites this paper as Brewer et al., 2011

    The Results (§3.2; page not provided) report 31% point-prevalence abstinence with mindfulness training versus 6% with the comparison treatment at 17 weeks—approximately fivefold. The Introduction (§1) proposes that mindfulness may help people experience cravings without smoking, but this trial does not establish mechanistic decoupling. It does not study emotional eating or report a 40% reduction in craving-related eating. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Contextual CBTs such as mindfulness-based therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy appear to succeed in treating nicotine addiction and promoting smoking cessation with minimal or no reported increased suicidality risk.

    “contextual CBTs such as mindfulness-based therapy and ACT appear to demonstrate success in treating nicotine addiction and promoting smoking cessation with minimal or no reported increased risk of suicidality.76,78,88”

    From Are smoking cessation treatments associated with suicidality risk? An overview (2016) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Results (§3.2; page unavailable) report higher smoking-abstinence rates after mindfulness training than after the comparison treatment, and the Introduction (§1; page unavailable) describes preliminary evidence for ACT in smoking cessation. The paper does not report suicidality outcomes or establish that either treatment carries minimal or no increased suicidality risk. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Brewer et al. concluded that mindfulness training is an effective method to help people quit smoking.

    “Brewer et al.78 concluded that mindfulness training is an effective method to help people quit smoking.”

    From Are smoking cessation treatments associated with suicidality risk? An overview (2016) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Results (section 3.2) report higher smoking abstinence with mindfulness training than with the comparison treatment at 17 weeks. But the paper’s Conclusions describe this as an initial trial whose findings suggest mindfulness training *may* confer benefits; the claim presents its effectiveness as a settled conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Brewer et al. reported a 17-week point prevalence odds ratio of 6.75 in the mindfulness group, significantly larger than the average odds ratio of behavioral therapies in current clinical practice guidelines.

    “These authors further promote that the 17-week point prevalence odds ratio of 6.75 in their mindfulness-based intervention group was significantly larger than the average odds ratio of behavioral therapies as reported in the current clinical practice guidelines”

    From Are smoking cessation treatments associated with suicidality risk? An overview (2016) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Discussion (section 4) reports a 17-week point-prevalence odds ratio of 6.75. It calls this significantly larger than the average odds ratio of 1.76 in a meta-analysis of group counseling, and separately says it was larger than odds ratios for therapies in clinical practice guidelines. It does not say the comparison with the guideline figures was statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent reviews indicate that mindfulness-based therapies are efficacious for promoting abstinence and reducing cravings.

    “recent reviews of the evidence indicate its efficacy for promoting abstinence and reducing cravings.51,78–80,95”

    From Are smoking cessation treatments associated with suicidality risk? An overview (2016) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Results (section 3.2; page unavailable) report higher smoking abstinence with mindfulness training than with the comparison treatment at 17 weeks. But this paper is a randomized trial, not a review, and its stated outcomes were abstinence and cigarettes smoked per day; it does not establish that the therapy reduced cravings. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Brewer JA Bowen S Smith JT Marlatt GA Potenza MN Response to commentaries on mindfulness-based treatments for co-occuring depression and substance use disorders: what can we learn from the brain? Addiction 2010b 105 1709 1710 PMC2905496 20331548

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brewer, J. A., Mallik, S., Babuscio, T. A., Nich, C., Johnson, H. E., Deleone, C. M., Minnix-Cotton, C. A., Byrne, S. A., Kober, H., Weinstein, A. J., Carroll, K. M., & Rounsaville, B. J.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Brewer, Judson A.
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
119
Issue
1-2
Pages
72-80
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089965180
Cited by
383
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 13
FWCI
17.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Yale University
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K05-DA00457, K05DA000089, K05DA00089, P50DA009241, K05DA000457, K12 DA00167, R03DA029163, P50-DA-0-9241, K12DA000167)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (UL1DE019586)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
mindfulness training, smoking cessation, nicotine dependence, smoking abstinence, group intervention, addiction treatment
MeSH terms
Adult, Carbon Monoxide, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Nicotine, Smoking, Tobacco Use Disorder, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Nicotinic Agonists, 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