Cited by 170Smoking Behavior and CessationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Web-Based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Smoking Cessation

Open access
Bricker, J., Wyszynski, C., Comstock, B., Heffner, J. L.·2013·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Web-based smoking cessation interventions have high reach, but low effectiveness. To address this problem, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of the first web-based acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention for smoking cessation. The aims were to determine design feasibility, user receptivity, effect on 30-day point prevalence quit rate at 3 months post-randomization, and mediation by ACT theory-based processes of acceptance. METHODS: Adult participants were recruited nationally into the double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial (N = 222), which compared web-based ACT for smoking cessation (WebQuit.org) with the National Cancer Institute's Smokefree.gov-the U.S. national standard for web-based smoking cessation interventions. RESULTS: We recruited 222 participants in 10 weeks. Participants spent significantly longer on the ACT WebQuit.org site per login (18.98 vs. 10.72 min; p = .001) and were more satisfied with the site (74% vs. 42%; p =.002). Using available follow-up data, more than double the fraction of participants in the ACT WebQuit.org arm had quit smoking at the 3-month follow-up (23% vs. 10%; OR = 3.05; 95% CI = 1.01-9.32; p = .050). Eighty percent of this effect was mediated by ACT theory-based increases in total acceptance of physical, cognitive, and emotional cues to smoke (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The trial design was feasible. Compared with Smokefree.gov, ACT had higher user receptivity and short-term cessation, and strong evidence of theory-based mechanisms of change. While results were promising, they were limited by the pilot design (e.g., limited follow-up), and thus a full-scale efficacy trial is now being conducted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ntr/ntt056

Cites

50 of 50 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bricker, J., Wyszynski, C., Comstock, B., & Heffner, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2013-05-23
Volume
15
Issue
10
Pages
1756-1764
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W2000457378
Cited by
170
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 2
FWCI
14.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA026517)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA166646, P30CA015704)
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
acceptance and commitment therapy, smoking cessation, online intervention, e-health, quit rates
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Smoking Cessation, Internet

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