Cited by 81Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Development and preliminary randomized controlled trial of a distress tolerance treatment for smokers with a history of early lapse

Open access
Brown, R. A., Reed, K. M. P., Bloom, E. L., Minami, H., Strong, D. R., Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., Zvolensky, M. J. +2 more·2013·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: An inability to tolerate distress is a significant predictor of early smoking lapse following a cessation attempt. We conducted a preliminary randomized controlled trial to compare a distress tolerance (DT) treatment that incorporated elements of exposure-based therapies and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to standard smoking cessation treatment (ST). METHODS: Smokers with a history of early lapse in prior quit attempts received either DT (N = 27; 9 2-hr group and 6 50-min individual sessions) or ST (N = 22; 6 90-min group and 1 20-min individual session), plus 8 weeks of transdermal nicotine patch. RESULTS: At the end of behavioral treatment, odds of abstinence among participants receiving DT were 6.46 times greater than among participants receiving ST (66.7% vs. 31.8%), equivalent to a medium- to large-effect size. Odds of abstinence for DT were still 1.73 times greater at 8 weeks, corresponding to a small- to medium-effect size, although neither this difference nor those at 13 and 26 weeks were statistically significant. Furthermore, of those who lapsed to smoking during the first week postquit, DT participants had more than 4 times greater odds of abstinence than ST participants at the end of treatment. Relative to ST, DT participants also reported a larger decrease in experiential avoidance, a hypothesized DT treatment mediator, prior to quit day. The trajectory of negative mood and withdrawal symptoms in DT differed from ST and was largely consistent with hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for the decrease in abstinence in DT after treatment discontinuation and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ntr/ntt093

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • Brown 2013 observed no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference between conditions for negative affect at four weeks post-quit.

    “Brown 2013 (49 participants) analysed negative affect at four weeks post‐quit and observed no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference between conditions.”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Brown 2013

  • Complete-case analysis for Brown 2013 did not substantially change the interpretation of the result (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 8.28; 46 participants).

    “Using complete‐case analysis did not substantially change the interpretation of the result (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 8.28; 46 participants; Analysis 6.10).”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Brown 2013

  • Brown 2013's comparison of distress tolerance training with less intensive treatment had substantial imprecision (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 49 participants; low-certainty evidence).

    “There was substantial imprecision, meaning the result could indicate potential harm as well as considerable benefit (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 49 participants; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 3.2).”

    From Mindfulness for smoking cessation (2022) · cites this paper as Brown 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, R. A., Reed, K. M. P., Bloom, E. L., Minami, H., Strong, D. R., Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., Zvolensky, M. J., Gifford, E. V., & Hayes, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Clark University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2013-07-24
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
2005-2015
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W2101168653
Cited by
81
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA017332, R01DA017332)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
distress tolerance, smoking cessation, relapse prevention, acceptance and commitment therapy, exposure therapy, experiential avoidance, nicotine withdrawal symptoms, negative mood, nicotine patch, abstinence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Aged, Behavior Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nicotine, Smoking, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Time Factors, Tobacco Use Disorder, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Tobacco Use Cessation Devices

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