Cited by 263Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Delay Discounting, Locus of Control, and Cognitive Impulsiveness Independently Predict Tobacco Dependence Treatment Outcomes in a Highly Dependent, Lower Socioeconomic Group of Smokers

Open access

Abstract

Tobacco use disproportionately affects lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Current explanations as to why lower SES groups respond less robustly to tobacco control efforts and tobacco dependence treatment do not fully account for this disparity. The identification of factors that predict relapse in this population might help to clarify these differences. Good candidates for novel prognostic factors include the constellation of behaviors associated with executive function including self‐control/impulsiveness, the propensity to delay reward, and consideration and planning of future events. This study examined the ability of several measures of executive function and other key clinical, psychological, and cognitive factors to predict abstinence for highly dependent lower SES participants enrolled in intensive cognitive‐behavioral treatment for tobacco dependence. Consistent with predictions, increased discounting and impulsiveness, an external locus of control as well as greater levels of nicotine dependence, stress, and smoking for negative affect reduction predicted relapse. These findings suggest that these novel factors are clinically relevant in predicting treatment outcomes and suggest new targets for therapeutic assessment and treatment approaches.(Am J Addict 2012;21:221–232)

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.00224.x

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010, Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data
  2. 10.1001/jama.1989.03420010059033 · DOI
  3. Chambless DL, 1998, Update on empirically validated therapies ll, Clin Psycholgist, 51, 3
  4. 10.1037/0278-6133.14.1.41 · DOI
  5. Beck AT, 1996, Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory
  6. Mazur JE, 1987, Quantitative Analysis of Behavior, 55
  7. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.95 · DOI
  8. 10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1316 · DOI
  9. Powell DH, 1993, MicroCog: Assessment of Cognitive Functioning Manual
  10. Zimbardo PG, 1992, Stanford Time Perception Inventory Manual

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Sheffer, C., MacKillop, J., McGeary, J., Landes, R., Carter, L., Yi, R., Jones, B., Christensen, D., Stitzer, M., Jackson, L., & Bickel, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Kent State University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Carilion Clinic (US)
Venue
The American Journal on Addictions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04-06
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
221-232
ISSN
  • 1055-0496 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0391
OpenAlex
W2123851557
Cited by
263
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
15.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal on Addictions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (NCRR20146)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K23AA016936)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (L30 DA023847, R01DA022386, R01DA011692)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR029884)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
tobacco dependence, delay discounting, locus of control, executive function, self-control, socioeconomic disparities, smoking cessation, recurrence prediction, nicotine dependence, stress, cognitive behavioral therapy, prognostic factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Reward, Social Class, Tobacco Use Disorder, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Executive Function

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