Cited by 255Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSchizophrenia research and treatment

A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention among people with a psychotic disorder

Open access
Baker, Amanda, Richmond, Robyn, Haile, Melanie, Lewin, Terry J., Carr, Vaughan J., Taylor, Rachel L., Jansons, Sylvia, Wilhelm, Kay·2006·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite extremely high rates of smoking among individuals with psychotic disorders and the associated financial and health costs, few studies have investigated the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among this group. The purpose of this study was to compare an integrated psychological and nicotine replacement therapy intervention for people with a psychotic disorder with routine care alone. METHOD: The authors recruited 298 regular smokers with a psychotic disorder residing in the community and randomly assigned them to a routine care comparison condition (N=151) or an eight-session, individually administered smoking cessation intervention (N=147), which consisted of nicotine replacement therapy, motivational interviewing, and cognitive behavior therapy. Outcome variables included continuous and point-prevalence abstinence rates, smoking reduction status, and changes in symptoms and functioning. RESULTS: While there were no overall differences between the treatment group and comparison group in abstinence rates, a significantly higher proportion of smokers who completed all treatment sessions stopped smoking at each of the follow-up occasions (point-prevalence rates: 3 months, 30.0% versus 6.0%; 6 months, 18.6% versus 4.0%; and 12 months, 18.6% versus 6.6%). Smokers who completed all treatment sessions were also more likely to have achieved continuous abstinence at 3 months (21.4% versus 4.0%). There was a strong dose-response relationship between treatment session attendance and smoking reduction status, with one-half of those who completed the intervention program achieving a 50% or greater reduction in daily cigarette consumption across the follow-ups, relative to less than one-fifth of the comparison subjects. There was no evidence of any associated deterioration in symptoms or functioning. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the utility of a nicotine replacement therapy plus motivational interviewing/cognitive behavior therapy smoking cessation intervention among individuals with a psychotic disorder. Further development of more efficacious interventions is required for those who do not respond to existing interventions.

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 · 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.11.1934

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • One study has compared a specialized smoking cessation program for patients with schizophrenia with an ordinary program developed for people in the general population and found no differences in cessation rates between the two programs.

    “No studies have compared smoking cessation programs with no intervention, but one study has compared a specialized smoking cessation program for patients with schizophrenia with an ordinary program developed for people in the general population and found no differences in cessation rates between the two programs (Baker et al. 2006).”

    From Excess early mortality in schizophrenia. (2014) · cites this paper as Baker et al. 2006

    The Study Design section says the trial compared a smoking cessation intervention for people with psychotic disorders against treatment as usual plus smoking-cessation booklets—not an ordinary cessation program developed for the general population. Overall Changes in Smoking reports no significant difference in abstinence rates between the randomized groups at 3, 6, or 12 months, supporting only the cessation-rate portion of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In some cases, greater session attendance or treatment completion has been positively associated with outcomes, but this association is not ubiquitous, suggesting individual differences in dose-response.

    “In some cases, a greater number of sessions attended or treatment completion have shown positive associations with outcomes (Baker et al., 2006; Fiore, 2008; Smits et al., 2016; Whiteley et al., 2012), but this is not ubiquitous, suggesting individual differences in dose-response exist (Baldwin et al., 2009; Barkham et al., 2006; Owen et al., 2016; Reese et al., 2011).”
  • Outcome assessors were blinded in only six of the 18 controlled studies (33%).

    “outcome assessors were blinded in only six studies (33%; Baker et al. 2006;Forbes et al. 2012;Mills et al. 2012;Forsyth et al. 2017;Shawyer et al. 2017;Kelly et al. 2020).”
  • Four of five therapeutic studies examining substance misuse reported significant reductions in participants' consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.

    “Four of five studies that examined substance misuse reported significant reductions in participants' consumption of alcohol (Forbes et al. 2012), tobacco (Baker et al. 2006;Ashton et al. 2015) and other drug use (Nagel et al. 2009).”

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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [26]26. Ventura J, Lukoff D, Nuechterlein KH, Liberman RP, Green M, Shaner A: Appendix 1: Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) ex- panded version (4.0) scales, anchor points and administration manual. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 1993; 3:227-243
  2. [27]27. Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG: Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition. Orlando, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich and Company, 1988

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baker, A., Richmond, R., Haile, M., Lewin, T. J., Carr, V. J., Taylor, R. L., Jansons, S., & Wilhelm, K.
Affiliations
University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2006-11
Volume
163
Issue
11
Pages
1934-1942
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2171976686
Cited by
255
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 27
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • University of New South Wales
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (141708)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
smoking cessation, psychosis, nicotine replacement therapy, motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, abstinence rates, dose-response relationship, treatment attendance
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adult, Combined Modality Therapy, Counseling, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Motivation, Nicotine, Psychotic Disorders, Smoking, Comorbidity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome

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