Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lichtenstein, E.
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lichtenstein, E.
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, 63-72, 1990
© 1990 Oxford University Press

research-article

Prospective analysis of two modes of unaided smoking cessation

Edward Lichtenstein1 and Sheldon Cohen2

Oregon Research Institute, 1899 Willamette Eugene, OR 97401, USA
2Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Smokers attempting to quit by themselves (n = 218) or with the aid of brief, written materials (n = 195) were assessed prior to quitting and 1 month and 12 months after their quit date. While the two samples used somewhat differing quitting strategies and showed some differences in short-term quitting, the 12-monthoutcomes were similar: point prevalence quit rates of 16 and 20%; continuous quitting rates of 0.5 and 5.5%respectively. Demographic and smoking history characteristics of the samples approximated those seen in cessation clinic samples. Participants reported using an average of over five quitting strategies with one sample reflecting use of the written materials they had requested. Reported use of, and satisfaction with, the written materials-at 1 month-was related to quit status at 12 months. However, neither use of specific quitting strategies, reasons for quitting, demographic and smoking history variables, or motivation and confidence were related to smoking status outcomes. Only baseline smoking and other indicators of dependence were prospectively predictive of smoking status.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Health Educ BehavHome page
M. S. Hwang, K. L. Yeagley, and R. Petosa
A Meta-Analysis of Adolescent Psychosocial Smoking Prevention Programs Published Between 1978 and 1997 in the United States
Health Educ Behav, December 1, 2004; 31(6): 702 - 719.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ BehavHome page
M. C. Willemsen, H. de Vries, G. van Breukelen, and R. Genders
Long-Term Effectiveness of Two Dutch Work Site Smoking Cessation Programs
Health Educ Behav, August 1, 1998; 25(4): 418 - 435.
[Abstract]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.