Long-term effects of implementation intentions on prevention of smoking uptake among adolescents: A cluster randomized controlled trial.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of implementation intentions in reducing smoking uptake in a sample of adolescents. DESIGN: Classes of adolescents (aged 11-12 years) were randomly allocated to one of four conditions: implementation intention, self-efficacy, two control conditions. An implementation intention or a self-efficacy manipulation (both formed in relation to how to refuse offers of cigarettes) was completed by intervention condition participants at 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term smoking behavior (self-report and objective) was assessed at 48 months post-baseline. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two control conditions and the self-efficacy condition. Controlling for baseline smoking, sex, attitudes to smoking, friends and family smoking, and the multilevel nature of the data, intention-to-treat analyses indicated the implementation intention manipulation significantly reduced self-reported smoking compared to the other three conditions combined. Analyses on objectively assessed smoking (carbon monoxide breath measure) in a random subsample of participants also indicated that the implementation intention manipulation compared to the other three conditions significantly reduced smoking. CONCLUSION: Implementation intentions can reduce smoking in adolescent samples. Implications for using implementation intentions to reduce smoking in adolescents are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 studies with the longest follow-up periods, the intervention was typically reinforced through repeated sessions, which likely contributed to the sustained effects.
“Second, in studies with the longest follow‐up periods, the intervention was typically reinforced through repeated sessions (e.g. Conner et al., 2019; Conner & Higgins, 2010), which likely contributed to the sustained effects.”
From The effectiveness of implementation intentions in children: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Conner & Higgins, 2010
Cites
Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.493 · Cited by 5,478 · see citing works
Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38002-1 · Cited by 3,236 · see citing works
Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers
Jarvis, M. J., Tunstall-Pedoe, H., Feyerabend, C., Vesey, C., & Saloojee, Y. (1987) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.77.11.1435 · Cited by 994 · see citing works
Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis
Fergusson, D., Aaron, S. D., Guyatt, G., & Hébert, P. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.001 · Cited by 414 · see citing works
A meta-analysis of smoking prevention programs after adjustment for errors in the unit of analysis
Rooney, B. L., & Murray, D. M. (1996) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019819602300104 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kwasnicka, D., Presseau, J., White, M., & Sniehotta, F. F. (2013) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2013.766832 · Cited by 237 · see citing works
School‐based programmes for preventing smoking
Thomas, R. E., McLellan, J., & Perera, R. (2013) · Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal · doi:10.1002/ebch.1937 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
The effectiveness of implementation intentions in children: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Breitwieser, J., & Reinelt, T. (2026) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.70065 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Conner, M., & Higgins, A. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- ORCID
- Conner, Mark
- Venue
- Health Psychology
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 529-538
- ISSN
- 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-7810
- OpenAlex
- W2087413853
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (R-000–22-3219, RES-000–22-0077)
- University of Leeds
- 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
- implementation intentions, adolescent smoking, smoking prevention, self-efficacy, carbon monoxide breath test, smoking uptake
- MeSH terms
- Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, Attitude, Behavior Therapy, Child, Family, Female, Goals, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Motivation, Peer Group, Surveys and Questionnaires, Smoking, Time, Cluster Analysis, Age of Onset, Self Efficacy, Intention, Self Report
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