Relapse Means to S T Using Tobacco Again After You Have Stopped.

• Periodical Listing
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC4517970

Addiction. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2015 Jul 28.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC4517970

NIHMSID: NIHMS708771

Predictors of smoking relapse by duration of abstinence: findings from the International Tobacco Command (ITC) 4 Land Survey

North Herd

^a Section of Psychology, The Academy of Melbourne, Commonwealth of australia

R Borland

^b VicHealth Eye for Tobacco Command, The Cancer Council Victoria, Australia

A Hyland

^c Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, U.s.a.

Abstract

Aim

To explore predictors of smoking relapse and how predictors vary according to elapsing of forbearance.

Pattern, setting and participants

A longitudinal survey of 1296 ex-smokers recruited as part of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Land Survey (Australia, Canada, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, and U.s.).

Measurements

Quitters were phone interviewed at varying durations of abstinence (from one day to approximately three years) so followed-up approximately one yr later. Theorised predictors of relapse (i.e., urges to smoke; result expectancies of smoking and quitting; and abstinence cocky-efficacy) and nicotine dependence were measured in the survey.

Findings

Relapse was associated with lower forbearance self-efficacy and a higher frequency of urges to smoke, but only subsequently the first month or so of quitting. Both of these measures mediated relationships between perceived benefits of smoking and relapse. Perceived costs of smoking and benefits of quitting were unrelated to relapse.

Conclusions

Challenging perceived benefits of smoking may be an effective fashion to increase abstinence self-efficacy and reduce frequency of urges to smoke (particularly afterwards the initial weeks of quitting), in order to subsequently reduce relapse adventure.

Keywords: smoking, tobacco, cessation, relapse

Introduction

Near smokers would like to quit (1) and the majority have tried to practice so (2, 3), simply near of those who endeavour terminate upwards relapsing. (4-vii). Relapse occurs most often during the initial days of quitting (half-dozen); notwithstanding, longitudinal studies take shown that a substantial proportion of quitters who remain abstinent early in the quit attempt, actually go on to relapse afterwards existence quit for months or fifty-fifty years (5, viii-ten). Despite the prevalence of late relapse there is express understanding of its precipitates and whether it differs from early on relapse.

In a companion paper (xiii), we showed that smoking related beliefs and experiences change systematically after quitting. Measures of about variables studied (due east.g., frequency of urges to smoke, abstinence self-efficacy) changed relatively speedily during the first few weeks of quitting before beginning to asymptote; nonetheless, the rate of asymptoting varied from a rapid, logarithmic, office to a slower, square-root role of time. Differing rates of change means that the influences of these beliefs are probable to change and it is possible that this is related to the ability of these factors to influence relapse at different points in time.

Existent time data and retrospective accounts of relapse accept found that cravings and urges to fume are often cited equally precipitates of early relapse (12, 14, 15). Similarly, perceived benefits of smoking predict relapse early in quit attempts (xvi, 17); still, it is unclear what office they play in long-term relapse. Depression self-efficacy has proven to be a reliable predictor of early relapse (5, eleven, 18-20). One study plant an interactive relationship between self-efficacy and fourth dimension (11): high self-efficacy predicted success among those quit for less than a week or those experiencing at to the lowest degree daily stiff urges to smoke, just predicted relapse among participants who had been quit for more than a calendar week and who reported less than daily strong urges to smoke. The authors suggested that overconfidence might play a meaning role in late relapse. Other research has establish that higher levels of behavioural change process predicted relapse, but only during the beginning month of quitting (5). Research into post-quitting weight proceeds has shown that during the initial weeks of quitting gains predict abstinence, whereas gains later in the quitting process predict relapse (12).

Using longitudinal data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey, our aim was to explore the rate at which quitters relapsed over time, and how smoking related beliefs (i.eastward., abstinence self-efficacy, benefits of smoking/costs of quitting, benefits of quitting/costs of smoking) and experiences (i.e., frequency of urges to smoke) precipitate relapse over fourth dimension.

Given that these factors are unlikely to trigger relapse independently of one another, we also explored possible interactive processes by which predictors precipitate relapse. In line with Bandura's social cognitive theory (21) and previous enquiry findings (17) we hypothesised:

• 1)

  that perceived benefits of smoking would only threaten sustained abstinence when cocky-efficacy was low; and

• 2)

  that self-efficacy would only protect against relapse when the task of quitting was accounted to be more hard (i.due east., in this study, having high perceived benefits of smoking).

Next we explored the mediating mechanisms though which predictors precipitated relapse. In line with Marlatt and Gordon'due south model of relapse prevention (22), Dijkstra and Borland (17) found that the relationship between perceived benefits of smoking and relapse was mediated by cravings, but not self-efficacy. Given that greater perceived benefits of smoking are likely to brand the task of quitting seem more hard, it is surprising that the authors did not find a causal pathway in which greater perceived benefits of smoking also exert their influence on relapse by decreasing self-efficacy. We sought to examination these mediating models of relapse individually and as part of a multiple mediation model.

In the current paper we also explore two models of relapse: a fixed threshold model and a relative threshold model. If relapse occurs when smoking related beliefs and experiences are above given fixed thresholds and then the probability of relapse should decline over time as these measures fall further below the threshold. Every bit the predictors asymptote, all other things being equal, rates of relapse should stabilise at very low levels. By contrast, the relative threshold model of relapse predicts that the probability of relapse will proceed to vary over time because the thresholds at which smoking related belief and experiences precipitate relapse are relative and, therefore, likewise vary over time (i.due east., the threshold would become progressively lower, and thus rates of relapse would be college than predicted by a fixed threshold model).

Method

The ITC-4 Survey is an annual longitudinal survey of smokers that was established to evaluate the psychosocial and behavioural affect of tobacco control policies (23). Participants who cull to quit smoking are retained in the cohort, thus providing the opportunity to study predictors of relapse over time.

Participants

Participants in the current study were 1296 adults from the first five waves of the ITC-4 Survey, recruited as smokers who were and then subsequently quit on at least one wave and who reported smoking condition at the subsequent wave. Participants' beliefs and reported experiences taken from the start four waves of data were used to predict relapse in waves two through five (2003-2006). All predictors, except sociodemographics, time to first cigarette, and cigarette consumption, were assessed while participants were quit. Fifty-7 per centum of participants were female and the mean age was 43.64 years (SD=14.16). Overall, 30% were from Commonwealth of australia, 27% from the UK, 26% from Canada, and eighteen% from the The states. Before quitting, 39% smoked i-10 cigarettes per twenty-four hour period, 42% 11-20, and 15% more than twenty. Mean heaviness of smoking index (HSI), the combination of cigarettes smoked per day and time to first cigarette (range 0-half dozen), was two.18 (SD=1.58). At baseline (while still smoking), almost participants had smokers amongst their five closest friends (24% none; 19% 1; 22% ii; 16% three; twenty% four or five).

Participants who were quit at more than than one wave (and reported more than i wave of follow-up information) contributed multiple response sets: 896 contributed ane set; 296 two sets; and 104 iii sets (no participants completed all four sets of data). At that place were 1800 sets of responses across the 5 waves from the 1296 respondents. Number of days quit across all five waves ranged from one to 1121, with a median of 151 and an interquartile range of 341.5 (146 were surveyed during the kickoff week post quitting, 239 were surveyed 1 calendar week – i month, 655 were surveyed 1-6 months, 291 were surveyed 6 months - 1 year, 326 were surveyed one-2 years, and 143 were surveyed >2 years). Nicotine replacement therapy was used by 8% of participants at the time of beingness interviewed.

Measures

The demographic and baseline (while smoking) measures used are described above. Smoking status outcome at each moving ridge was determined by asking participants if they were nonetheless quit, and if so, whether they had stayed quit since the last survey date. Participants who were back smoking and those who were currently quit but reported that they had not stayed quit since the terminal survey were considered to have relapsed. Participants who reported smoking at least one time a calendar month were considered to be even so smokers.

Proposed predictors of relapse (presented in Error! Reference source not found.) were drawn from established psychosocial models of health behaviour (refer to Fong et al (23)) and have been used in past inquiry exploring predictors of quitting (24). Responses to each item were recorded on 4- or v-point Likert scales (for more details of each measure see Herd et al. (13)).

Statistical analysis

Results in the corresponding trends paper (13) plant that the majority of proposed predictors of relapse changed according to a logarithmic or foursquare-root office. Therefore, for duration of abstinence in the electric current study, we used the transformation that all-time fitted each of the dependent variables in the previous paper; a log transformation of days quit was used for proposed predictors that changed over time according to a log function and a square root transformation was used for those that changed according to a square root role. All analyses were conducted using STATA 10 (and significant findings are indicated by p-values of 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001).

Logistic regression analysis was used to explore relationships between demographic variables (i.east., sexual activity, age, state, HSI, and nicotine replacement therapy) and relapse at the following wave approximately one twelvemonth later, afterward adjusting for log transformed duration of abstinence. Wald tests were used to determine the overall significance of each categorical demographic variable. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationships betwixt proposed predictors of relapse and relapse at the subsequent wave, after adjusting for demographic variables and appropriately transformed duration of abstinence. Interactions betwixt proposed predictors and duration of abstinence were entered in the final step to determine if the relationships betwixt these variables and relapse varied according to duration of abstinence. Due to missing information for HSI at recruitment and nicotine replacement therapy, we conducted analyses with and without these variables. Results including these variables are merely reported if they were substantially different from the pattern of results obtained before they were added. The postgr3 command for STATA (25, 26), was used to graph the adapted predicted probability of relapse according to the logistic regression interpretation models. The postgr3 command holds covariates entered in the logistic regression models constant at their mean.

Some responses in the electric current analysis were repeated measures and, therefore, cannot be considered independent from ane some other. Therefore, generalised estimating equation models (GEE) were also fitted to the data (27). An exchangeable inside-subject correlation structure was used, equally this immune for unequal spacing in elapsing of abstinence between observations. An unstructured correlation construction was initially tried, only did not always permit the data to converge. All of the results from GEE modelling supported the results obtained from logistic regression analysis and, therefore, are not reported in the results.

Hypothesised moderating effects were explored by adding an interaction term betwixt independent variables to the model after both variables had already been entered. Mediation analysis with a dichotomous dependent variable was carried out according to the methods described by MacKinnon and Dwyer (28) and multiple mediators were tested simultaneously according to the methods described past Kenny at al. (29). In one case again, all analyses adapted for demographic measures and duration of abstinence.

Results

Overall, 37% (n=668) of participants quit at 1 moving ridge relapsed before the subsequent wave, with the remaining 63% (north=1132) remaining abstinent. Not surprisingly, relapse past the subsequent wave was more than prevalent early in the quit attempt (Table 1). Sex, age, country, and use of nicotine replacement therapy did non predict relapse after adjusting for duration of forbearance. The HSI besides did non predict relapse. Nevertheless, amongst the small sample surveyed during the outset month of quitting (n=289), during which nicotine dependence would be expected to be almost likely to influence quitting success, relapse was marginally (albeit non-significant) higher amongst heavier smokers (11-20 cigarettes, OR=ane.02, 95% CI=0.59-1.78; 21-30 cigarettes, OR=1.58, 95% CI=0.65-3.83; 31+ cigarettes, OR=1.41, 95% CI=0.27-seven.46).

Table ane

Smoking status at the subsequent wave by elapsing of forbearance at the preceding wave.

Smoking status at follow-up wave	Elapsing of abstinence at preceding wave
	i-seven days	8-thirty	31-182	183-365	366-730	>730
Relapsed	114 (78%)	154 (64%)	274 (42%)	65 (22%)	54 (17%)	7 (v%)
Continued abstinence	32 (22%)	85(36%)	381 (58%)	226 (78%)	272 (83%)	136 (95%)

Results in Table two show that for every one point increase in log days quit, the odds of relapse decreased by a factor of 0.17.

Tabular array ii

Results of logistic regression modelling identifying significant predictors of relapse past the subsequent moving ridge: demographics and duration of forbearance (log transformed) (n=1678).

	Variables	Wald test	Odds ratio	95% CI	p
Days quit (log transformed)			0.17	0.13-0.21	<0.001
NRT	Not using	2.56	i
	Using		1.44	0.92-2.26	0.11
HSI			1.00	0.92-i.07	0.90
Sex	Female	0.52	1
	Male person		0.92	0.73-1.xvi	0.47
Historic period	18-24 years	6.71	ane
	25-39 years		0.73	0.48-1.eleven	0.14
	twoscore-54 years		0.69	0.45-1.05	0.08
	55+ years		0.56	0.36-0.88	<0.05
Country	Commonwealth of australia	2.62	1
	Canada		0.87	0.65-one.xviii	0.38
	United Kingdom		0.89	0.65-1.21	0.45
	United states of america		0.75	0.53-1.07	0.11

Later controlling for demographics and duration of forbearance, the number of smokers among participants' five closest friends significantly predicted relapse; for each friend who smoked, the odds of relapse increased by 1.12 (95% CI=ane.04-1.twenty, p<0.01). In that location was a significant interaction betwixt number of friends who smoked and duration of abstinence (OR=i.16, 95% CI=1.04-1.29, p<0.01) suggesting that a higher proportion of friends who smoke was only associated with an increased adventure of relapse afterwards approximately a month postal service quitting. Error! Reference source not found. shows the probability of relapse at each measured time point as a office of reported number of smoker friends at baseline.

Post-quitting belief and experiences as predictors of relapse

Tabular array 3 presents results from logistic regression analysis identifying predictors of relapse. A higher frequency of urges to smoke measured at waves ii to iv was significantly related to an increased likelihood of relapse. A meaning interaction between urges and duration of forbearance indicated that urges predicted relapse differently according to elapsing of abstinence (see Figure ii). This, and subsequent figures, prove the probability of relapse (12 months later) for the mensurate taken at the time indicated. Given that the interaction appeared to cross over at approximately one month postal service quitting, we conducted dissever logistic regression analyses for one month or less post quitting and more than one calendar month post quitting. Results showed that urges during the beginning month of quitting were unrelated to relapse (OR=1.09, 95% CI=0.83-1.43, p>0.05); however, frequent urges reported later a month or more were associated with a greater likelihood of relapse at follow-upward (OR=1.42, 95% CI=1.25-one.lx, p<0.001). Nosotros tested to see if this may have been due to the use of nicotine replacement therapy early in the attempt, only institute no effect.

The interaction betwixt elapsing of abstinence and frequency of urges to fume as a predictor of relapse.

Tabular array iii

Results of logistic regression modelling identifying predictors of relapse.

			Chief event model		Interaction model
	Independent Variables	N	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Urges to smoke	Frequency of strong urges to fume	1727	0.65 *	0.45-0.93	one.45 ***	one.22-i.72
Perceived benefits of smoking	Perceived weight command benefits of smoking	1785	1.06	0.97-one.16
	Enjoy smoking too much to give information technology up for good	1764	1.26 ***	1.eleven-1.42
	Smoking is an important part of your life†	1792	i.14 *	ane.01-1.28
	Smoking calms you downwardly when you are stressed	1782	1.10 *	1.004-1.212
	Thoughts about the enjoyment of smoking	1796	0.72 *	0.54-0.96	i.29 ***	1.12-one.48
Perceived costs of smoking	Thoughts almost the harms of smoking to you and others†	1788	1.06	0.96-1.16
	Thoughts about the money spent on smoking†	1797	1.00	0.93-1.09
Perceived benefits of quitting	Perceived health and other benefits of not smoking	1723	0.98	0.88-1.10
	Perceived risk of heart affliction in hereafter vs. non-smoker	1502	0.93	0.84-1.04
	Perceived quality of life since quitting	1679	ane.08	0.95-1.23
Abstinence self-efficacy	How sure are you that y'all can stay quit?	1786	0.62 ***	0.56-0.lxx

4 of the five perceived benefits of smoking nosotros measured predicted relapse, with only perceived weight control benefits of smoking being unrelated. Figure 3 shows that higher agreement with three perceived benefits was related to increased relapse independent of time. Higher frequency of thoughts most the enjoyment of smoking was also significantly related to an increased likelihood of relapse, simply the upshot varied by fourth dimension quit (Figure 4). There was no event during the first month of quitting (OR=0.96, 95% CI=0.79-1.16, p>0.05); even so, afterward a month there was an increased likelihood of relapse with higher frequency of enjoyment thoughts (OR=1.23, 95% CI=1.12-1.36, p<0.001). For those quit for less than one month there were limited numbers of cases (as low every bit 256), then the results need to be treated with caution. The but perceived benefit of smoking to be independently predictive for this sub-sample was the belief that smoking is too enjoyable to give upwardly for good.

Duration of abstinence and perceived benefits of smoking as predictors of relapse.

The interaction betwixt duration of abstinence and frequency of thoughts near the enjoyment of smoking as a predictor of relapse.

We found that perceived costs of smoking and perceived benefits of quitting did not predict relapse (Error! Reference source not found.). At that place were also no significant interactions between each of these measures and elapsing of abstinence. Figure v shows that higher self-efficacy was associated with a lower probability of relapse.

Duration of abstinence and abstinence self-efficacy equally predictors of relapse.

Moderation of relapse

Moderating models of relapse were used to decide if perceived benefits of smoking only threatened sustained forbearance when self-efficacy was low. After adjusting for master furnishings, demographics, and duration of abstinence, the interactions between cocky-efficacy and each perceived benefit of smoking item was not significant, indicating no moderation consequence. We also tested to see if self-efficacy was only important when urges were high by looking at its furnishings amongst those quit for more one month and reporting less than daily strong urges. Still, cocky-efficacy was still a strong predictor (OR=0.69, 95% CI=0.59-0.81).

Mediation of relapse

Mediating models of relapse explored whether frequency of urges to smoke and self-efficacy mediated the relationships between perceived benefits of smoking and relapse. Elapsing of abstinence, sexual practice, historic period, and country were entered as covariates at each step. Given that frequency of urges to smoke only predicted relapse afterwards the first calendar month of quitting, we only explored whether it acted as a mediator afterward this point. Likewise, the arbitration of frequency of thoughts about the enjoyment of smoking was only explored after ane month postal service quitting.

The relationships betwixt relapse and the beliefs that smoking calms you down, that information technology is an important part of life, and that information technology is too enjoyable to give up for good, were all mediated past cocky-efficacy (Fault! Reference source non found.). Frequency of thoughts about the enjoyment of smoking was only partially mediated past self-efficacy. For those quit for more than one month, the relationships between relapse and frequency of thoughts about the enjoyment of smoking, and the conventionalities that smoking calms you downwards, were both mediated past frequency of urges to smoke. The belief that smoking is too enjoyable to give up for good was but partially mediated by urges. The relationship betwixt relapse and the belief that smoking is an important part of life was not meaning when data from the first month of quitting was excluded.

Given the overlapping mediation, we side by side explored whether the above effects were simultaneously mediated by urges and self-efficacy. Not surprisingly, frequency of urges and self-efficacy were negatively correlated (r=−0.32, p<0.001). Results confirmed that when both proposed mediators were added to the models predicting relapse, each perceived benefit of smoking no longer predicted relapse. Sobel tests establish that the indirect effects of perceived benefits of smoking on relapse were carried past both urges and cocky-efficacy (see Figure 6). This figure does non show the relationship for the belief that smoking is an important part of life every bit information technology was not a significant predictor of relapse post 1 month quit.

The indirect consequence of perceived benefits of smoking on relapse through frequency of urges to fume and abstinence self-efficacy.

Discussion

This written report is one of the few to assess relapse in the general population, rather than as a function of a clinical abeyance intervention. Our results showed that the rate of smoking relapse decreased over time consistent with previous studies (v, 6), dropping to around 5% after more two years. The two main dynamic predictors of relapse appear to be self-efficacy, which protects against relapse, and frequency of urges to fume, which promotes relapse, but only after being quit for around one month. Both these variables appear to mediate the predictive relationships between relapse and perceived benefits of smoking/barriers to quitting. The other important predictor we identified was number of friends who smoke, just again just from a calendar month or then afterwards quitting. Curiously, cigarette consumption prior to quitting, an indicator of dependence, was not a predictor of relapse. We also institute no effect for perceived costs of smoking/benefits of quitting and one potential barrier to quitting, perceived weight control benefits of smoking. In the post-obit paragraphs we endeavour to integrate these findings with each other and with previous research.

Nosotros were surprised to find no effect for dependence given that this is known to be a stiff predictor of smoking cessation (24), although the literature regarding relapse is scarce (12). This may advise that high levels of addiction (at least equally measured by the behavioural indices of the HSI) generally just predicts very early relapse, something we were underpowered to study. If these findings were to exist replicated, then it would be proficient news for dependent smokers who might anticipate greater difficulty in staying quit for sustained periods, suggesting that if they survive the early days they are as likely to succeed as would anyone else. That said, frequency of potent urges to smoke predicted relapse after ane month, and this is clearly related to dependence (thirty). It may be that our behavioural measures of dependence are missing a vital element of dependence that becomes important post-abeyance.

Number of friends who smoked was predictive of relapse, just only after a month or so. Early on those with more smoking friends seemed to do somewhat amend. We suspect this is partly a office of those with many smoking friends taking this into account early on; nevertheless, the impact of friends existence continual, means the ease of staying quit does not improve as it might for those who live in a more non-smoking environment. Any such event could exist magnified if quitters tended to avoid socialising with smoking friends in the early days of their try, but, understandably, did not sustain this over fourth dimension.

Lower self-efficacy was a significant predictor of relapse independent of duration of abstinence and frequency of urges, consistent with much previous research (5, 19, 20). The only report to discover time-dependent effects (11) looked at predictors curt term (around three weeks), while our written report considers them over a longer time period, suggesting that in the long term, at to the lowest degree, high self-efficacy for the maintenance of abstinence is critical.

Frequency of potent urges to fume too predicted relapse, but merely after the first month or so of quitting. Retrospective accounts of relapse advise that urges to smoke precipitate relapse (15), as also, does existent fourth dimension data of initial smoking lapses among recent quitters (14). Our findings are consistent with this. Still, they practise suggest that the frequency of such urges may not exist a trouble early on on in a quit attempt. Perhaps early on in the quit attempt, quitters are prepared to deal with urges and this helps keep them focussed on the task; however, if urges persist then they may experience self-regulatory fatigue and become more than susceptible to relapse (31). Although urges may not precipitate early relapse, we do not question the utility of learning how to cope with such urges.

Perceived benefits of smoking/barriers to quitting appear to simply be associated with relapse to the extent that they pb to more urges to smoke and/or reduce self-efficacy for staying quit. The barriers we identified as beingness important were frequency of thoughts most the enjoyment of smoking, and agreement with the beliefs that smoking calms you down when stressed, that it is an important role of life, and that it is too enjoyable to give up for good. Two of these may be particularly of import early in quit attempts; smoking existence an important part of life (run into Figure 3B), equally information technology was not significant when analyses were restricted to those quit for more than one month, and that smoking is too enjoyable to give up for practiced, the only independent predictor during the outset month. These behavior might exist expected to persist, so the fact that they decline and may lose influence is reassuring, every bit it suggests that they may lose potency with time, as well equally condign less prevalent (13). The belief that smoking calms you down when stressed or upset was one of the few predictors of relapse that was however persistent amidst many participants even years after quitting (13). Given that this belief was significantly associated with relapse, it may contribute to a substantial proportion of late relapse, particularly when stressful or upsetting experiences occur.

The belief that smoking helps control weight was the only perceived do good of smoking that was unrelated to relapse, and interestingly, also the only perceived benefit for which agreement increased over time (thirteen). Given that agreement with this belief was likely to have increased in response to actual weight gain, the results propose that weight gain alone was unlikely to take been a precipitate of relapse. By research has found that baseline concerns well-nigh potential weight gain are unrelated to subsequent relapse (32-35). However, given that quitters increasingly gain weight the longer they are quit it is likely that business organisation with weight gain as well increases over time. Hereafter research would benefit from exploring the relationship between relapse, actual weight gain, and concerns nigh weight that has been gained.

Frequency of thoughts about the enjoyment of smoking was the one perceived benefit of smoking that became a stronger predictor with time. This highlights the importance of helping the quitter develop strategies for extinguishing craving-evoking cues in as many contexts every bit possible. Nostalgic beliefs about the value of smoking may be one peculiarly of import set of cues for sustaining cravings and threatening cocky-efficacy. Our findings suggest a more dynamic model of the interrelationships between these factors and self-efficacy than that found by Dijkstra and Borland (17), in that information technology is not high self-efficacy itself that is critical in preventing barriers from precipitating relapse, merely rather the capacity to maintain high cocky-efficacy in the context of strongly felt barriers to quitting that is disquisitional.

Although perceived costs of smoking and benefits of quitting often precipitate a quit attempt (3, 24) and are often used in the media to encourage quitting, results in the current study institute that like-minded with, or thinking more well-nigh, these problems did not increment the likelihood of successful forbearance after quitting. Similar research by Hyland and colleagues (24) also plant that perceived costs of smoking (measured before quitting) were unrelated to relapse; however, larger expected benefits of quitting at baseline did predict relapse (unexpectedly). The health benefits of quitting are typically difficult to notice and were probably nonetheless largely in the hereafter for most participants in this study, thus they may exist largely insignificant in helping maintain abstinence. An alternative explanation is that some levels of such beliefs are universal and the variability in our measures was non meaningful. We do not question the utility of quitters agreement the health benefits of staying quit, indeed why would they bother if they thought at that place was no benefit, particularly those that come across benefits from smoking? Instead, it might be that cognition of the harms helps to maintain abstinence only if it is specifically accessed during periods of relapse vulnerability (something that was non measured in this written report).

The finding that the probability of relapse reduces over time for all variables studied is notable. I t supports a relative threshold model of relapse, in which the threshold at which determinants precipitate relapse varies over fourth dimension. We might have expected that persistence or strong pro-smoking attitudes, frequent urges, and low self-efficacy might take been even more predictive of relapse over time. Information technology is possible the effect is because the ratings are made relative to their current state of affairs, rather than to an absolute, simply fifty-fifty if this is so, it is reassuring. These findings complement those found in our companion paper (13) that showed changes in levels of behavior over time. These changes should add together to the reduced predictive value for relapse to further reduce overall relapse rates. It suggests that failure to successfully intervene to reduce the threat from these factors might not be a complete recipe for relapse. Nonetheless, it remains important to challenge these beliefs and experiences, because they remain predictors of relapse, which as we have seen, occurs at unacceptably loftier rates.

Caution needs to be exercised even so in generalising too strongly from our results. To further explore the manner in which these potential determinants of relapse interact, inquiry is required in which these variables are measured more frequently and closer to the smoking status outcome. Our mediation assay was also limited past the predictor variables and mediators being measured at the aforementioned time. Information technology would be especially instructive to experimentally induce changes in perceived benefits of smoking and assess their touch on urges and self-efficacy, and and then on relapse in club to confirm this mediational pathway.

The current study was express by the varying intervals betwixt our measures and when relapse occurred. It could have been only days afterward the survey, in which case the predictors were measured proximally, or information technology could have been up to a year. Given the potential gap betwixt the survey and upshot measures, it is notable that we withal found stiff predictors of relapse. We acknowledge that we lacked sensitivity to detect the effects of variables that modify considerably day to day. However, the variables that are most probable to change in this manner, urges and frequency of thoughts, were identified as predictors, so we think it unlikely that we have missed other major predictors for this reason. Yet, we acknowledge that the strength of the clan between the predictors we found and relapse is likely to be stronger than we approximate here. We also acknowledge that predictors of relapse may vary according to factors not measured hither, and might vary for some population sub-groups (east.k., those with psychiatric or melancholia disorders, those from unlike subcultures), but it is equally possible that the determinants of relapse are relatively constant and all that would vary is the frequency of predictors of relapse and possibly the rates at which they change with time.

Overall, the results confirm a considerable level of relapse even among those who have been abstinent for a year or longer. The model of relapse that emerges from this is that perceived benefits of smoking play a primal role in effecting the frequency of urges to smoke and lowering cocky- efficacy, which then subsequently co-decide relapse. Rather than reminding ex-smokers about the costs of smoking or benefits of quitting to encourage sustained forbearance, it may exist more beneficial to provide persuasive information or experiences that challenge perceived benefits of smoking, to the extent that this is possible. However, there is only limited testify that such a strategy works to reduce alcohol consumption (36), so caution is required. Our findings also advise that there may be a need to adopt somewhat different strategies for preventing relapse early in the quit attempt to later on. Early on, coping with challenges would appear to exist important, while by a month or so, it is important to have fewer smoking urges and bolstered self-efficacy.

​

The interaction between elapsing of abstinence and number of smokers among five closest friends every bit a predictor of relapse.

Table 4

The mediation of perceived benefits of smoking on relapse by frequency of urges to fume and abstinence cocky-efficacy.

Predictors	Outcomes (Standardized regression coefficients and SE)			Sobel test (z)
	ASE	Relapse	Mediated relapse
Thoughts nearly the enjoyment of smoking†	−0.10 (0.01) ***	0.fourteen (0.03) ***	0.10 (0.03) **	4.72 ***
ASE			−0.21 (0.03) ***
Smoking calms me downward when stressed	−0.09 (0.01) ***	0.07 (0.03) *	0.02 (0.03)	5.twoscore ***
ASE			−0.26 (0.03) ***
Smoking is an important part of life	−0.x (0.01) ***	0.06 (0.03) *	0.02 (0.03)	5.46 ***
ASE			−0.26 (0.03) ***
I savour smoking besides much to quit for good	−0.15 (0.01) ***	0.xi (0.03) ***	0.04 (0.03)	6.48 ***
ASE			−0.26 (0.03) ***

	Urges	Relapse	Mediated relapse
Thoughts about the enjoyment of smoking†	0.23 (0.01) ***	0.14 (0.04) ***	0.06 (0.04)	four.06 ***
Urges			0.sixteen (0.04) ***
Smoking calms me down when stressed†	0.x (0.01) ***	0.08 (0.04) *	0.05 (0.04)	4.25 ***
Urges			0.18 (0.04) ***
I enjoy smoking too much to quit for expert†	0.07 (0.01) ***	0.xi (0.03) **	0.08 (0.03) *	3.45 ***
Urges			0.17 (0.03) ***

Acknowledgements

The first author was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award. This research was funded past grants from the National Cancer Plant of the United states of america (R01 CA 100362), the Roswell Park Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Eye (P50 CA111236), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (045734), Canadian Institutes of Wellness Research (57897 and 79551), National Wellness and Medical Research Quango of Australia (265903 and 450110), Cancer Research United kingdom (C312/A3726), and Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (014578), with additional support from the Centre for Behavioural Research and Programme Evaluation, National Cancer Establish of Canada/ Canadian Cancer Club.

Footnotes

Address where work was carried out: Department of Psychology, School of Behavioural Science, 12th Floor, Redmond Barry Building, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Commonwealth of australia

Conflict of involvement declaration: None

References

1. Mullins R, Borland R. Do smokers want to quit? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 1996;twenty:426–427. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Borland R, Yong H, Male monarch B, Cummings KM, Fong GT, Marshall TE, et al. Apply of and behavior almost light cigarettes in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Command Evaluation Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2004;half dozen:S311–S321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

three. Hyland A, Li Q, Bauer J, Giovino Yard, Steger C, Cummings KM. Predictors of cessation in a cohort of electric current and former smokers over 13 years. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2004;six:S363–S369. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Piasecki TM, Fiore MC, McCarthy DE, Baker TB. Have we lost our mode? The demand for dynamic formulations of smoking relapse proneness. Habit. 2002;97:1093–1108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

five. Segan CJ, Borland R, Greenwood KM. Can transtheoretical model measures predict relapse from the activity phase of change among ex-smokers who quit after calling a quitline? Addictive Behaviors. 2006;31:414–428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Hughes JR, Keely J, Naud South. Shape of the relapse curve and long-term abstinence amongst untreated smokers. Habit. 2004;99:29–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Marlatt GA, Curry S, Gordon JR. A longitudinal analysis of unaided smoking abeyance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1988;56:715–720. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

viii. Wetter DW, Cofta-Gunn 50, Fouladi RT, Cinciripini PM, Sui D, Gritz ER. Late relapse/sustained abstinence amongst former smokers: a longitudinal study. Preventive Medicine. 2004;39:1156–1163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Brandon Thursday, Lazev AB, Juliano LM. Very delayed smoking relapse warrants enquiry attention. Psychological Reports. 1998;83:72–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ten. Blondal T, Gudmundsson LJ, Olafsdottir I, Gustavsson 1000, Westin A. Nicotine nasal spray with nicotine patch for smoking cessation: randomised trial with six year follow upward. British Medical Journal. 1999;318:285–289. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Borland R, Balmford J. Perspectives on relapse prevention: An exploratory study. Psychology and Wellness. 2005;20:661–671. [Google Scholar]

12. Norregaard J, Tonnesen P, Petersen Fifty. Predictors and reasons for relapse in smoking abeyance with nicotine and placebo patches. Preventive Medicine. 1993;22:261–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xiii. Herd N, Borland R. The natural history of quitting smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction. Submitted. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Shiffman S, Paty JA, Gnys M, Kassel JA, Hickcox M. Starting time lapses to smoking: within-subjects analysis of real-time reports. Periodical of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1996;64:366–379. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

fifteen. Cummings KM, Jaen CR, Giovino G. Circumstances Surrounding Relapse in a Group of Recent Ex-smokers. Preventive Medicine. 1985;xiv:195–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xvi. Gwaltney CJ, Shiffman Due south, Balabanis MH, Paty JA. Dynamic self-efficacy and outcome expectancies: prediction of smoking lapse and relapse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2005;114:661–675. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Dijkstra A, Borland R. Residual outcome expectations and relapse in ex-smokers. Health Psychology. 2003;22:340–346. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Condiotte MM, Lichtenstein Eastward. Self-efficacy and relapse in smoking cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1981;49:648–658. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Stuart K, Borland R, Murray N. Self-efficacy, wellness locus of control, and smoking abeyance. Addictive Behaviours. 1994;19:1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Shiffman S, Balabanis MH, Paty JA, Engberg J, Gwaltney CJ, Liu KS, et al. Dynamic effects of self-efficacy on smoking lapse and relapse. Health Psychology. 2000;nineteen:315–323. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Bandura A. Social foundations of idea and action: a social-cognitive theory. Prentice-Hill; Englewood Cliffs, New Bailiwick of jersey: 1986. [Google Scholar]

22. Marlatt GA, Gordon JR, editors. Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Handling of Addictive Behaviours. Guilford Press; New York: 1985. [Google Scholar]

23. Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hastings Yard, Hyland A, Giovino GA, et al. The conceptual framework of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project. Tobacco Control. 2006;15:iii3–iii11. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Hyland A, Borland R, Li Q, Yong H-H, McNeill A, Fong GT, et al. Individual-level predictors of cessation behaviours among participants in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four State Survey. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 3):iii83–iii94. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Mitchell MN, Chen X. Visualizing principal effects and interaction for binary logit models. The Stata Journal. 2005;5:64–82. [Google Scholar]

26. UCLA Bookish Engineering Services Stata Programs for Data Analysis. How can I use postgr3 for making graphs after estimation commands. 2007 [Google Scholar]

27. Liang Thousand, Zeger SL. Longitudinal information assay using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22. [Google Scholar]

28. MacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies Evaluation review. 1993;17:144–158. [Google Scholar]

29. Kenny DA, Kashy D, Bolger North. Data analysis in social psychology. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill; New York: pp. 233–265. [Google Scholar]

30. Etter J, Houezec JL, Perneger Television set. A self-administered questionnaire to measure dependence on cigarettes: the cigarette dependence scale. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28:359–370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Baumeister RF, Heatherton TF, Tice DM. Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. Academic Press; San Diego, CA: 1994. [Google Scholar]

32. Pisinger C, Jorgensen T. Weight concerns and smoking in a general population: The Inter99 study. Preventive Medicine. 2007;44:283–289. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Borrelli B, Mermelstein R. The office of weight business organisation and self-efficacy in smoking cessation and weight proceeds amidst smokers in a clinic-based abeyance programme. Addictive Behaviors. 1998;23:609–622. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. French SA, Jeffery RW, Pirie PL, McBride CM. Do weight concerns hinder smoking cessation efforts? Addictive Behaviors. 1992;17:219–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Sepinwall D, Borrelli B. Older, medically ill smokers are concerned nigh weight gain after quitting smoking. Addictive Behaviors. 2004;29:1809–1819. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Jones BT, Corbin Westward, Fromme M. A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction. 2001;96:57–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

armstrongunclefor.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517970/

Share this post