Cited by 109Smoking Behavior and CessationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Efficacy of mindfulness-based addiction treatment (MBAT) for smoking cessation and lapse recovery: A randomized clinical trial.

Open access
Vidrine, Jennifer Irvin, Spears, Claire Adams, Heppner, Whitney L., Reitzel, Lorraine R., Marcus, Marianne T., Cinciripini, Paul M., Waters, Andrew J., Li, Yisheng +6 more·2016·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Addiction Treatment (MBAT) to a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) that matched MBAT on treatment contact time, and a Usual Care (UC) condition that comprised brief individual counseling. METHOD: Participants (N = 412) were 48.2% African American, 41.5% non-Latino White, 5.4% Latino, and 4.9% other, and 57.6% reported a total annual household income < $30,000. The majority of participants were female (54.9%). Mean cigarettes per day was 19.9 (SD = 10.1). Following the baseline visit, participants were randomized to UC (n = 103), CBT (n = 155), or MBAT (n = 154). All participants were given self-help materials and nicotine patch therapy. CBT and MBAT groups received 8 2-hr in-person group counseling sessions. UC participants received 4 brief individual counseling sessions. Biochemically verified smoking abstinence was assessed 4 and 26 weeks after the quit date. RESULTS: Logistic random effects model analyses over time indicated no overall significant treatment effects (completers only: F(2, 236) = 0.29, p = .749; intent-to-treat: F(2, 401) = 0.9, p = .407). Among participants classified as smoking at the last treatment session, analyses examining the recovery of abstinence revealed a significant overall treatment effect, F(2, 103) = 4.41, p = .015 (MBAT vs. CBT: OR = 4.94, 95% CI: 1.47 to 16.59, p = .010, Effect Size = .88; MBAT vs. UC: OR = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.04 to 16.75, p = .043, Effect Size = .79). CONCLUSION: Although there were no overall significant effects of treatment on abstinence, MBAT may be more effective than CBT or UC in promoting recovery from lapses. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 · 10.1037/ccp0000117

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • Vidrine 2016 observed no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference between conditions for depression, perceived stress, negative affect, or positive affect at any time point.

    “They analysed changes between quit date and six months and observed no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference between conditions for any outcome.”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Vidrine 2016

    The Results section, “Effects of MBAT in Facilitating Recovery from a Lapse” (page unavailable), reports statistically significant differences between conditions, contrary to the printed sentence’s claim of no difference for any outcome. The paper’s mentions of depression, perceived stress, and affect in “Attrition and Sensitivity Analyses” concern missing-data comparisons, not treatment effects on those outcomes; they do not establish the narrower claim about those four outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Pooled data from three studies comparing mindfulness training with an intensity-matched alternative smoking cessation treatment showed no evidence of benefit, with RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 542 participants; low-certainty evidence).

    “Pooled data showed no evidence of a benefit of mindfulness training, with a point estimate very close to the null (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 542 participants; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.1).”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Vidrine 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There were no significant overall differences in abstinence rates across MBAT, CBT, and TAU, but MBAT showed benefits over CBT and TAU in promoting recovery from a lapse among participants who were not abstinent at the end of treatment.

    “In another study (78) that evaluated the efficacy of MBAT versus CBT and TAU, there were no significant overall differences in abstinence rates across the three treatments. However, MBAT showed benefits over CBT and TAU in promoting recovery from a lapse among participants who were not abstinent at the end of treatment.”

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: 3

  1. CDC. 2009 Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking Cessation --- United States, 2008 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 58 44 1227 1232 19910909
  2. Linehan M 1994 Acceptance and change: The central dialectic in psychotherapy Hayes SC Jacobson NS Follette VM Dougher M Acceptance and Change: Content and Context in Psychotherapy 73 86 Reno, NV Context Press
  3. Marlatt GA Gordon JR 1985 Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors New York Guilford Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vidrine, J. I., Spears, C. A., Heppner, W. L., Reitzel, L. R., Marcus, M. T., Cinciripini, P. M., Waters, A. J., Li, Y., Nguyen, N. T. T., Cao, Y., Tindle, H. A., Fine, M., Safranek, L. V., & Wetter, D. W.
Affiliations
  • OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center (US)
  • Catholic University of America (US)
  • Georgia College & State University (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Rice University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2016-09
Volume
84
Issue
9
Pages
824-838
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2405972414
Cited by
109
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences
  • Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust
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
smoking cessation, cognitive behavioral therapy, nicotine dependence, smoking abstinence, group counseling, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Combined Modality Therapy, Counseling, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Tobacco Use Cessation Devices, Mindfulness

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