Cited by 95Smoking Behavior and CessationBehavioral Health and InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Long-term effects of implementation intentions on prevention of smoking uptake among adolescents: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

Conner, Mark, Higgins, Andrea R.·2010·Health Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020317

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conner, M., & Higgins, A. R.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
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