Cited by 13Smoking Behavior and CessationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

A pilot randomized controlled trial of distress tolerance treatment for weight concern in smoking cessation among women

Open access
Bloom, Erika Litvin, Ramsey, Susan E, Abrantes, Ana M, Hunt, Laura, Wing, Rena R, Kahler, Christopher W, Molino, Janine, Brown, Richard A·2020·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The majority of women who smoke cigarettes report that concern about weight gain is a barrier to quitting. We developed an intervention incorporating distress tolerance, appetite awareness, and mindful eating skills to target concerns about post-cessation weight gain and emotional eating (DT-W). In the current study, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of DT-W versus a smoking health education (HE) intervention. METHODS: Participants (N = 69 adult female, weight-concerned smokers) were recruited in cohorts of 4-11. Cohorts were randomized to DT-W or HE. DT-W and HE were matched on format (single individual session followed by eight group sessions), inclusion of cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation (CBT) content, and pharmacotherapy (nicotine patches). Follow-up assessments occurred at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-treatment. RESULTS: The recruitment goal was met; 61 of the 69 participants attended at least one group session. There were no significant differences between DT-W and HE in the number of group sessions attended (DT-W adjusted M = 5.09, HE adjusted M = 5.03, p = .92), ratings of treatment effectiveness or usefulness of skills, or retention at 6-month follow-up (79% in DT-W vs. 78% in HE) (ps > .05), but comprehension ratings were lower in DT-W than in HE (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results suggest that the study procedures and interventions were feasible and acceptable, but changes to the DT-W intervention content to improve comprehension should be considered prior to conducting a fully powered trial. IMPLICATIONS: A distress tolerance-based treatment targeting fear of weight gain after smoking cessation and post-cessation emotional eating was feasible and acceptable relative to a smoking HE comparison condition, but changes should be considered before conducting a larger trial. Continued innovation in treatment development for weight-concerned smokers is needed.

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 · 10.1093/ntr/ntaa026

Cites

58 of 58 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?

  • Complete-case analysis for Bloom 2020 did not substantially change the interpretation of the result (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.86; 54 participants).

    “Using complete‐case analysis did not substantially change interpretation of the result (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.86; 54 participants; Analysis 6.9).”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Bloom 2020

    The Smoking and Weight Outcomes section (page unavailable) reports no significant treatment effect on abstinence, consistent with the stated interpretation. Bloom does not report a complete-case analysis or the cited RR and confidence interval; its Analytic Plan describes mixed models instead. The 54 participants are consistent with the reported six-month follow-up attendance of 26 in DT-W and 28 in HE, but Bloom does not present the cited analysis for them. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bloom 2020 showed no evidence of a benefit of distress tolerance training versus matched-intensity treatment, with the 95% CI spanning benefit and harm (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 69 participants; low-certainty evidence).

    “Bloom 2020 showed no evidence of a benefit of distress tolerance training, with the 95% CI spanning both benefit and harm (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 69 participants; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.1).”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Bloom 2020

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bloom 2020 planned to assess depression and negative affect at each follow-up (1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-treatment), but had not reported these data.

    “Bloom 2020 (69 participants) planned to assess depression and negative affect at each follow‐up (1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post‐treatment), but to our knowledge have not reported these data.”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Bloom 2020

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
Bloom, E. L., Ramsey, S. E., Abrantes, A. M., Hunt, L., Wing, R. R., Kahler, C. W., Molino, J., & Brown, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Rhode Island Hospital (US)
  • Department of Orthopaedics, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Bloom, Erika Litvin
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2020-01-29
Volume
22
Issue
9
Pages
1578-1586
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W3003793679
Cited by
13
References
55
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA035288)
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
distress tolerance, weight concern, smoking cessation, women smokers, post-cessation weight gain, emotional eating, mindful eating, nicotine patch, health education intervention, treatment feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Smokers, Body Weight, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Motivation, Pilot Projects, Smoking, Stress, Psychological, United States, Weight Gain, Health Behavior, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Smoking Cessation

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