Smoking cessation studies: a methodological comparison.

A wide variety in outcome criteria hinders comparison of results between smoking cessation studies. Three important methodological issues are discussed: analysis of data of participants who drop out of therapy, treatment of missing data, and repeated use of significance tests. These issues determine to a great extent the results of evaluation studies. In general, they are of interest to all researchers of addiction who study the effects of interventions. Several ways to decide on these issues and the consequences of these decisions are considered. Little consensus exists about the criterion for dropout. It is concluded that a dropout criterion is a burden rather than a help. A better criterion would be the number of sessions present. Few satisfying techniques exist to handle the problem of missing data. Evaluation studies need to set a priori standards to counter the increased risk of a Type I error, caused by the repeated use of significance tests. Reviewers need to be aware of the variety in data treatment before comparing results.

[1]  J. Macleod Clark,et al.  Helping people to stop smoking. , 1987, Nursing times.

[2]  O. Pomerleau,et al.  Nicotine-produced antinociception in minimally deprived smokers and ex-smokers. , 1986, Addictive behaviors.

[3]  A. Rizzo,et al.  The saliva thiocyanate analysis: a methodological extension and its relationship to CO and self-report in moderate smokers. , 1986, Addictive behaviors.

[4]  P. Hajek,et al.  Enhancing the impact of groups: an evaluation of two group formats for smokers. , 1985, The British journal of clinical psychology.

[5]  W. B. Walker,et al.  Low-risk aversive group treatments, physiological feedback, and booster sessions for smoking cessation , 1985 .

[6]  M. Polen,et al.  Methodologic issues in evaluating stop smoking programs. , 1985, American journal of public health.

[7]  S. Hall,et al.  Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment in smoking cessation. , 1985, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[8]  L. Greaves,et al.  Characteristics affecting successful outcome in the cessation of smoking. , 1985, The International journal of the addictions.

[9]  A. Hjalmarson.  Effect of nicotine chewing gum in smoking cessation. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. , 1984, JAMA.

[10]  S. Rabkin,et al.  A randomized trial comparing smoking cessation programs utilizing behaviour modification, health education or hypnosis. , 1984, Addictive behaviors.

[11]  E Corty,et al.  Response prevention in the treatment of cigarette smoking. , 1984, Addictive behaviors.

[12]  R. Foxx,et al.  Nicotine's role in smoking: an analysis of nicotine regulation. , 1983, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  M. Jarvik,et al.  Nicotine gum in smoking cessation: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. , 1983, Addictive behaviors.

[14]  P. Suedfeld,et al.  Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy and Behavioral Self‐Management in Smoking Cessation1 , 1982 .

[15]  E. D. Di Giusto,et al.  The effects of sensory deprivation on cigarette craving and smoking behaviour. , 1982, Addictive behaviors.

[16]  R. Shipley,et al.  Measurement of smoking: surveys and some recommendations. , 1982, Addictive behaviors.

[17]  K. Fagerström.  Tobacco smoking, nicotine dependence and smoking cessation , 1981 .

[18]  H. Lando.  Effects on preparation, experimenter contact, and a maintained reduction alternative on a broad-spectrum program for eliminating smoking. , 1981, Addictive behaviors.

[19]  R. McFall,et al.  Smoking-cessation research. , 1978, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[20]  D Adkins,et al.  Predictors of outcome and recidivism in smoking cessation treatment. , 1978, Addictive behaviors.

[21]  D. Bernstein.  Modification of smoking behavior: an evaluative review. , 1969, Psychological bulletin.