0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

Prevention of Relapse After Quitting Smoking:  A Systematic Review of Trials FREE

Tim Lancaster, MSc, MB, BS; Peter Hajek, PhD; Lindsay F. Stead, MSc; Robert West, PhD; Martin J. Jarvis, DSc
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (Dr Lancaster and Ms Stead); Clinical Psychology, The Royal London Hospital, and Tobacco Dependence Research Centre, Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, England (Dr Hajek); and Department of Epidemiology and Public Health (Drs West and Jarvis) and Tobacco Studies (Dr West), Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit, University College London, London.


Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(8):828-835. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.8.828.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  After initially successful quit attempts, many people return to smoking within a year, reducing the public health benefits of investment in smoking cessation. We aimed to assess whether interventions designed to prevent relapse after a successful quit attempt reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

Methods  We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group trials' register. We selected randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. We included people who quit on their own, underwent enforced abstinence, or were in treatment programs. We included trials comparing relapse prevention interventions with no intervention or cessation plus relapse prevention with cessation intervention alone. Two of us independently extracted data from each report, with disagreements referred to a third author.

Results  Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common interventions were skills training to identify and resolve tempting situations and extended treatment contact. A few studies tested pharmacotherapy. We separately analyzed studies that randomized abstainers and those that randomized participants before their quit date. Within subgroups of trials, pooled odds ratios ranged from 0.86 to 1.30, and in most analyses, 95% confidence intervals included 1. Most studies had limited power to detect moderate differences between interventions.

Conclusion  The evidence to date does not support the adoption of skills training or other specific interventions to help individuals who have successfully quit smoking to avoid relapse, but this is an important area for future study.

Nicotine replacement,1 some antidepressants,2 and behavioral support3,4 for smoking cessation increase long-term quit rates compared with control, but a proportion of initially successful participants return to smoking over time. Several strategies for improving public health by reducing this proportion have been studied. These strategies include behavioral techniques, such as skills training,5 extended treatment contact, imaginary cue exposure, aversive smoking and social support, drug treatments, and other interventions primarily used for supporting quit attempts. In planning tobacco treatment programs, it is important to be informed about the relative effectiveness of different strategies, particularly in determining how much resource to allocate to helping quit attempts vs supporting abstinence. The objective of this review is to provide information to assist this decision. An extended version of this review has been published and will be regularly updated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.6

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group register of trials, which includes the results of systematic searches, updated quarterly, of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and conference abstracts. We identified studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in the title, abstract, or keywords. The most recent search was in August 2005.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with at least 6 months of follow-up after quitting. We included participants who had quit smoking on their own, were in enforced abstinence, or were in cessation programs. There is no clear distinction between a relapse prevention intervention and an extended cessation treatment. Thus, we included interventions identified by study investigators as intended to prevent relapse, compared with no intervention, a shorter intervention, or an intervention not oriented toward relapse prevention. The outcome was abstinence at follow-up of at least 6 months from randomization.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data on study setting, population, method of randomization, and allocation concealment; age, sex, baseline cigarette consumption, and period of quitting of participants; interventions and control condition; outcome, including length of follow-up; definition of cessation; and validation of self-reported smoking status.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The primary outcome was the number of quitters at the longest follow-up. We used biochemically validated cessation in preference to self-report where available, preferring continuous or prolonged abstinence to point prevalence abstinence where possible. We classified randomized participants who withdrew, were lost to follow-up, or failed to provide validation samples as continuing smokers. When studies reported strict and more lenient outcomes, we extracted both and conducted a sensitivity analysis on the pooled results. We expressed individual study results as an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and pooled study outcomes using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model, unless there was significant statistical or clinical heterogeneity between trials. We separately analyzed trials that randomized abstainers from those that randomized smokers. We also separated studies in which contact time was matched and those in which the relapse prevention included longer contact.

We performed subgroup analyses for longer (>4 weeks) and shorter durations of intervention, in trials randomizing smokers to matched-duration interventions, and between more (>4 sessions) and fewer intervention sessions for unmatched intervention and control programs. We also considered subgroup analyses for “skills” and social support studies, and for spontaneous quitters such as pregnant women and individuals seeking smoking cessation treatment.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES

We identified 42 studies for inclusion. One article7 reported 2 trials each with multiple arms relevant to different comparisons, and 4811 included subgroups or factorial designs contributing to different comparisons. Two (5%) of the studies did not specifically describe the intervention as involving relapse prevention. One12 was a replication of an included study, and one13 randomized abstainers.

Studies Randomizing People Who Had Stopped Smoking

Twenty-six studies randomized people who had stopped smoking (Table 1). The interventions for preventing relapse included behavioral strategies and pharmacotherapy. Intensive behavioral interventions involved repeated face-to-face contact usually aiming at teaching clients to identify tempting situations and to apply a range of coping and cognitive strategies to resist relapse. Less intensive interventions included written materials and brief face-to-face or telephone contacts.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Details of Studies Randomizing Abstainers Table 1. Details of Studies Randomizing Abstainers (cont)

Among the studies randomizing people who had stopped smoking, 9 randomized pregnant1419 or postpostpartum2022 abstainers. Two studies9,13 randomized hospital inpatients with cardiovascular illness who had not smoked during hospital admission, and one23 randomized hospital patients who were abstinent on the day of discharge. Two studies24,25 randomized military recruits undergoing enforced abstinence. Five studies10,11,2628 randomized participants recruited from local communities.

Five studies2933 randomized abstainers who had taken part in a cessation program to behavioral interventions. Four studies randomized abstainers to pharmacological interventions, including nicotine chewing gum10,11 and bupropion hydrochloride.34,35

Studies Randomizing Current Smokers Before Their Quit Date

Seventeen studies (including 1 also contributing to the first category9) randomized smokers who then attempted to quit with or without relapse prevention components (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Studies Randomizing Participants Before Their Quit Attempt
Intervention and Control Groups Matched for Contact Time

In 9 studies, intervention and control conditions were matched for the amount of contact. Seven studies (1 with 2 components)7,8,3639 used a group behavioral format, and 29,40 used individual counseling. Three provided pharmacotherapy to all treatment participants (the studies by Emmons et al38 and Buchkremer et al [with 2 components]7). A factorial design tested nicotine gum against no gum.40

Intervention and Control Groups Not Matched for Contact Time or Duration

Most smoking cessation studies comparing more with less intensive treatments include some intervention to prevent relapse. We only included trials that specified relapse prevention as an explicit focus of the intervention. We did not include studies offering treatment proactively to special populations, such as pregnant or hospitalized smokers, because all trials using these groups provide some relapse prevention input within the active treatment arm, and they are covered in separate Cochrane reviews. Where studies had 3 or more treatment conditions, we compared the most with the least intensive interventions. Seven studies7,12,4145 compared longer with shorter programs, all involving face-to-face contact. The relative intensity of the cessation and the relapse prevention components varied. One study46 compared group-based behavior therapy for 8 weeks plus proactive calls 1, 8, and 11 months later with group therapy alone. We excluded other studies that tested the use of telephone counseling as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy, because most of the behavioral support was provided during the cessation period.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF INCLUDED STUDIES
Sample Size and Study Design

Many trials were small and had limited power to detect realistic differences in quit rates, especially in the group that randomized smokers before the quit date.

Studies randomizing successful end-of-treatment quitters provide the most straightforward test of relapse prevention interventions designed for clinical practice. All 4 studies10,11,34,35 of pharmacological treatments used this approach, but only 2 studies31,33 of behavioral treatments randomized participants who were abstinent for more than 1 week of treatment.

Definition of Smoking Cessation

We required a report of smoking status a minimum of 6 months from the start of the intervention. In the case of studies that randomized smokers before quitting, this could have been from the quit date. Some studies timed follow-up from the end of treatment. Three trials9,22,38 reported 6 months of follow-up; all others had a longer follow-up. Some studies did not provide a definition of abstinence, and most others reported point prevalence rather than sustained abstinence.

Validation of Self-reported Abstinence

All but 6 studies20,22,24,25,28,29 used some form of biochemical validation of self-reported smoking status, but in some other cases, samples were not collected from all participants, were not collected at long-term follow-up, or were not used to correct self-reports.

Randomization

Four studies used cluster-randomized designs. In the 2 among military recruits,24,25 allocation was by training group and selection bias was unlikely. In the others, allocation was by midwife19 or pediatric practice,20 and selection bias in the subsequent enrollment of participants might have been possible. Two of the cluster-randomized trials reported that correlation between outcomes in individuals in the same cluster was small so that reporting individual outcomes was acceptable. These 2 trials also had high loss to follow-up, although there was no evidence of differential loss between arms.

In the absence of significant findings in meta-analysis subgroups, we did not attempt to explore the influence of study quality on outcomes.

TRIALS IN ABSTAINERS
Specific Populations
Pregnant and Postpartum Ex-smokers

We did not detect a significant benefit at the end of pregnancy from 6 trials1419 (n = 1183; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.53). We also failed to detect an effect in the studies15,1722 that included postpartum follow-up (n = 2695; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.27).

Hospital Inpatients

We failed to detect an effect of intervention in hospitalized patients who had not smoked in the hospital, based on 2 studies9,13 (n = 558; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.22). One further study46 offering 3 telephone calls for relapse prevention among patients abstinent at discharge failed to detect evidence of benefit (n = 106; OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.57-2.64).

Military Personnel

Neither trial24,25 detected a benefit of intervention. In both trials, the period of enforced abstinence gave rise to a higher quit rate than the spontaneous rate expected in these populations of young smokers, but no effect was detected from the additional interventions. Less than 3% of participants used the telephone support offered in one trial.25

Behavioral Interventions for Unaided Abstainers

We detected no evidence of a benefit of interventions to prevent relapse in people who had quit unaided10,11,2628 (n = 3561; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.96-1.34). All 5 studies used self-help interventions, although in one,28 the materials were individually tailored based on information collected via telephone questionnaires. Using different comparator groups in the 2 factorial studies27,28 of different types of self-help did not substantially alter the pooled effect.

Behavioral Interventions for Assisted Abstainers

We detected no long-term effect of skills-based interventions to prevent relapse in 5 studies2933 in which abstaining smokers were randomized after participation in a formal treatment program (n = 1121; OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.25). This meta-analysis compared the most intensive intervention with the least intensive control in the trials with more than 2 arms. Using a different comparison did not change the conclusion.

Pharmacotherapies for Abstainers

Two trials10,11 detected a small effect of nicotine gum (n = 2261; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.61). We failed to detect a significant benefit of bupropion when we pooled data from 2 trials34,35 (n = 605; OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.86-1.81).

STUDIES RANDOMIZING SMOKERS BEFORE THEIR QUIT DATE
Behavioral Interventions Matched for Contact Time

We found no benefit from the use of specific relapse prevention components in group or individual format interventions, based on 9 trials (with 1 trial that included 2 components)79,3640 (n = 793; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.27). There was no evidence of heterogeneity. Because all but 140 of the studies involved treatment contact for more than 4 weeks, we did not conduct a subgroup analysis by treatment duration. Most trials used a skills training approach.

One study8 comparing different versions of a self-help program did not detect a difference in quit rates (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.61-4.78).

Behavioral Intervention Not Matched for Contact Time or Duration

We detected no effect of relapse prevention in 7 trials7,12,4145 involving extended face-to-face contact (n = 699; OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.44). We detected no significant heterogeneity.

Extended Contact Using Proactive Telephone Calls

One trial46 failed to detect a benefit of providing extended contact by telephone after an intensive 8-week group program (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.43).

Through meta-analysis of randomized trials, we failed to detect a clinically significant effect of existing relapse prevention interventions in sustaining successful attempts to stop smoking. Because most studies concerned only 1 particular type of intervention (skills training), the volume of work is modest (to our knowledge, there exists only 1 study randomizing smokers at the end of a formal treatment period), and because many of the studies have serious limitations, there is a strong need for continuing research in this area.

Most studies included in this review evaluated low-intensity interventions, such as brief face-to-face encounters, written materials, mailings, and telephone contact. Although only a few included studies had adequate sample sizes to detect the expected effects, the CIs around the pooled estimates suggest that it is unlikely that the analysis failed to detect a significant benefit of low-intensity interventions. However, it is more difficult to exclude a clinically useful effect of more intensive interventions, because these have been less extensively studied.

Any negative verdict is limited to the only treatment approach studied extensively so far, the skills training approach. Other approaches, which have not been studied well or at all, have been proposed; these include opportunistic use of nicotine replacement, contingency contracting, social support, cue exposure (only imaginary exposure has been studied so far), and interventions aimed at maintaining abstainers' morale.

We included all studies that randomized abstainers, because these provide the best test of interventions aimed at maintaining abstinence. We also included studies randomizing smokers before quitting, which were described as tests of relapse prevention treatments, although there is not a clear-cut distinction between those interventions and others tested as pure cessation interventions.

There are 2 arguments in favor of randomizing smokers before stopping smoking. From a theoretical perspective, it may be difficult to separate cessation and relapse prevention advice; and from a practical perspective, sample sizes are usually much higher at the start than at the end of treatment. The methodological disadvantage of integrating cessation and relapse prevention is that it reduces power to detect specific relapse prevention effects. The primary outcome variable is normally the abstinence rate at follow-up. It is difficult to differentiate effects of the intervention on the initial smoking cessation from effects on preventing relapse in smokers who were initially successful. One solution to this problem is to provide a separate analysis of those achieving initial success. However, none of the existing studies used this approach, and it also poses problems with randomization if the initial cessation rate is unequal in the 2 groups.

Randomizing only those smokers who have made a successful quit attempt provides a stronger design for isolating the effects of relapse prevention, because true effects are not masked by other factors related to the initial success or skewed by uneven initial cessation rates. Of the existing studies using this approach, most recruited spontaneous abstainers, such as pregnant women. Of the studies of behavioral methods for relapse prevention, only 131 randomized smokers abstinent at the end of an initial treatment episode and 329,30,32 randomized smokers abstinent 5 to 8 days after their quit day.

The studies randomizing abstainers varied considerably in the periods for which participants had already abstained from smoking, from 24 hours to 16 months. This reflects the lack of a consistent definition of a successful quit attempt.

Future studies should consider randomizing smokers who were abstinent continuously and completely for at least 4 weeks, and use as the primary outcome measure continuous lapse-free abstinence of at least 6 months if the intervention was aimed at avoiding lapses. Where the intervention aimed at helping patients to cope with lapses should these occur, a period of grace (eg, 6 months) should be included, followed by another 6 months of lapse-free abstinence.

In summary, this review does not exclude a small effect of some relapse prevention interventions, but neither does it provide evidence to support inclusion of relapse prevention interventions in smoking treatment programs.

Correspondence: Tim Lancaster, MSc, MB, BS, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, England (tim.lancaster@dphpc.ox.ac.uk).

Accepted for Publication: September 16, 2005.

Author Contributions: Dr Lancaster had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Financial Disclosure: None.

Funding/Support: The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group is supported by the National Health Service of the United Kingdom.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding body had no role in data extraction and analyses, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Silagy  CLancaster  TStead  LMant  DFowler  G Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; ((3)) CD000146
PubMed
Hughes  JStead  LLancaster  T Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; ((4)) CD000031
PubMed
Lancaster  TStead  LF Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; ((3)) CD001292
PubMed
Stead  LFLancaster  T Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; ((3)) CD001007
PubMed
Marlatt  AGordon  J Relapse Prevention.  New York, NY Guilford Publications1985;
Hajek  PStead  LFWest  RJarvis  M Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; ((1)) CD003999
PubMed
Buchkremer  GMinneker  EBlock  M Smoking-cessation treatment combining transdermal nicotine substitution with behavioral therapy. Pharmacopsychiatry 1991;2496- 102
PubMed Link to Article
Curry  SJMarlatt  GAGordon  JBaer  JS A comparison of alternative theoretical approaches to smoking cessation and relapse. Health Psychol 1988;7545- 556
PubMed Link to Article
Schmitz  JMSpiga  RRhoades  HMFuentes  F Smoking cessation in women with cardiac risk: a comparative study of two theoretically based therapies. Nicotine Tob Res 1999;187- 94
PubMed Link to Article
Killen  JDFortmann  SPNewman  BVarady  A Evaluation of a treatment approach combining nicotine gum with self-guided behavioral treatments for smoking relapse prevention. J Consult Clin Psychol 1990;5885- 92
PubMed Link to Article
Fortmann  SPKillen  JD Nicotine gum and self-help behavioral treatment for smoking relapse prevention: results from a trial using population-based recruitment. J Consult Clin Psychol 1995;63460- 468
PubMed Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CDGinsberg  DBenowitz  NLJones  RT Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment: a placebo controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 1987;55603- 605
PubMed Link to Article
Hajek  PTaylor  TZMills  P Brief intervention during hospital admission to help patients to give up smoking after myocardial infarction and bypass surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002;32487- 89
PubMed Link to Article
Ershoff  DHQuinn  VPMullen  PD Relapse prevention among women who stop smoking early in pregnancy: a randomized clinical trial of a self-help intervention. Am J Prev Med 1995;11178- 184
PubMed
Secker-Walker  RHSolomon  LJFlynn  BS  et al.  Smoking relapse prevention counseling during prenatal and early postnatal care. Am J Prev Med 1995;1186- 93
PubMed
Lowe  JBWindsor  RBalanda  KPWoodby  L Smoking relapse prevention methods for pregnant women: a formative evaluation. Am J Health Promot 1997;11244- 246
PubMed Link to Article
Secker-Walker  RHSolomon  LJFlynn  BSSkelly  JMMead  PB Smoking relapse prevention during pregnancy: a trial of coordinated advice from physicians and individual counseling. Am J Prev Med 1998;1525- 31
PubMed Link to Article
McBride  CMCurry  SJLando  HAPirie  PLGrothaus  LCNelson  JC Prevention of relapse in women who quit smoking during pregnancy. Am J Public Health 1999;89706- 711
PubMed Link to Article
Hajek  PWest  RLee  A  et al.  Randomized controlled trial of a midwife-delivered brief smoking cessation intervention in pregnancy. Addiction 2001;96485- 494
PubMed Link to Article
Severson  HHAndrews  JALichtenstein  EWall  MAkers  L Reducing maternal smoking and relapse: long-term evaluation of a pediatric intervention. Prev Med 1997;26120- 130
PubMed Link to Article
Ratner  PAJohnson  JLBottorff  JLDahinten  SHall  W Twelve-month follow-up of a smoking relapse prevention intervention for postpartum women. Addict Behav 2000;2581- 92
PubMed Link to Article
Van't Hof  SMWall  MADowler  DWStark  MJ Randomised controlled trial of a postpartum relapse prevention intervention. Tob Control 2000;9 ((suppl 3)) III64- III66
PubMed Link to Article
Hasuo  STanaka  HOshima  A Efficacy of a smoking relapse prevention program by postdischarge telephone contacts: a randomized trial [in Japanese]. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi 2004;51403- 412
PubMed
Klesges  RCHaddock  CKLando  HTalcott  GW Efficacy of forced smoking cessation and an adjunctive behavioral treatment on long-term smoking rates. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67952- 958
PubMed Link to Article
Conway  TLWoodruff  SIEdwards  CCElder  JPHurtado  SLHervig  LK Operation Stay Quit: evaluation of two smoking relapse prevention strategies for women after involuntary cessation during US Navy recruit training. Mil Med 2004;169236- 242
PubMed
Brandon  THCollins  BNJuliano  LMLazev  AB Preventing relapse among former smokers: a comparison of minimal interventions through telephone and mail. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68103- 113
PubMed Link to Article
Brandon  THMeade  CDHerzog  TAChirikos  TNWebb  MSCantor  AB Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a minimal intervention to prevent smoking relapse: dismantling the effects of amount of content versus contact. J Consult Clin Psychol 2004;72797- 808
PubMed Link to Article
Borland  RBalmford  JHunt  D The effectiveness of personally tailored computer-generated advice letters for smoking cessation. Addiction 2004;99369- 377
PubMed Link to Article
Powell  DRMcCann  BS The effects of a multiple treatment program and maintenance procedures on smoking cessation. Prev Med 1981;1094- 104
PubMed Link to Article
Stevens  VJHollis  JF Preventing smoking relapse, using an individually tailored skills-training technique. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989;57420- 424
PubMed Link to Article
Razavi  DVandecasteele  HPrimo  C  et al.  Maintaining abstinence from cigarette smoking: effectiveness of group counselling and factors predicting outcome. Eur J Cancer 1999;351238- 1247
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  SSJorenby  DEFiore  MC  et al.  Strike while the iron is hot: can stepped-care treatments resurrect relapsing smokers? J Consult Clin Psychol 2001;69429- 439
PubMed Link to Article
Mermelstein  RHedeker  DWong  SC Extended telephone counseling for smoking cessation: does content matter? J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71565- 574
PubMed Link to Article
Hays  JTHurt  RDRigotti  NA  et al.  Sustained-release bupropion for pharmacologic relapse prevention after smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2001;135423- 433
PubMed Link to Article
Hurt  RDKrook  JECroghan  IT  et al.  Nicotine patch therapy based on smoking rate followed by bupropion for prevention of relapse to smoking. J Clin Oncol 2003;21914- 920
PubMed Link to Article
Hall  SMRugg  DTunstall  CJones  RT Preventing relapse to cigarette smoking by behavioral skill training. J Consult Clin Psychol 1984;52372- 382
PubMed Link to Article
Davis  JRGlaros  AG Relapse prevention and smoking cessation. Addict Behav 1986;11105- 114
PubMed Link to Article
Emmons  KMEmont  SLCollins  RLWeidner  G Relapse prevention versus broad spectrum treatment for smoking cessation: a comparison of efficacy. J Subst Abuse 1988;179- 89
PubMed Link to Article
Becona  EVazquez  FL The course of relapse across 36 months for smokers from a smoking-cessation program. Psychol Rep 1998;82143- 146
PubMed Link to Article
Niaura  RAbrams  DBShadel  WGRohsenow  DJMonti  PMSirota  AD Cue exposure treatment for smoking relapse prevention: a controlled clinical trial. Addiction 1999;94685- 696
PubMed Link to Article
Killen  JDMaccoby  NTaylor  CB Nicotine gum and self-regulation training in smoking relapse prevention. Behav Ther 1984;15234- 248
Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CRugg  DJones  RBenowitz  N Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment in smoking cessation. J Consult Clin Psychol 1985;53256- 258
PubMed Link to Article
Brandon  THZelman  DCBaker  TB Effects of maintenance sessions on smoking relapse: delaying the inevitable? J Consult Clin Psychol 1987;55780- 782
PubMed Link to Article
Lifrak  PGariti  PAlterman  AI  et al.  Results of two levels of adjunctive treatment used with the nicotine patch. Am J Addict 1997;693- 98
PubMed Link to Article
Shoptaw  SRotheram-Fuller  EYang  X  et al.  Smoking cessation in methadone maintenance. Addiction 2002;971317- 1328
PubMed Link to Article
Lando  HAPirie  PLRoski  JMcGovern  PGSchmid  LA Promoting abstinence among relapsed chronic smokers: the effect of telephone support. Am J Public Health 1996;861786- 1790
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Details of Studies Randomizing Abstainers Table 1. Details of Studies Randomizing Abstainers (cont)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Studies Randomizing Participants Before Their Quit Attempt

References

Silagy  CLancaster  TStead  LMant  DFowler  G Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; ((3)) CD000146
PubMed
Hughes  JStead  LLancaster  T Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; ((4)) CD000031
PubMed
Lancaster  TStead  LF Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; ((3)) CD001292
PubMed
Stead  LFLancaster  T Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; ((3)) CD001007
PubMed
Marlatt  AGordon  J Relapse Prevention.  New York, NY Guilford Publications1985;
Hajek  PStead  LFWest  RJarvis  M Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; ((1)) CD003999
PubMed
Buchkremer  GMinneker  EBlock  M Smoking-cessation treatment combining transdermal nicotine substitution with behavioral therapy. Pharmacopsychiatry 1991;2496- 102
PubMed Link to Article
Curry  SJMarlatt  GAGordon  JBaer  JS A comparison of alternative theoretical approaches to smoking cessation and relapse. Health Psychol 1988;7545- 556
PubMed Link to Article
Schmitz  JMSpiga  RRhoades  HMFuentes  F Smoking cessation in women with cardiac risk: a comparative study of two theoretically based therapies. Nicotine Tob Res 1999;187- 94
PubMed Link to Article
Killen  JDFortmann  SPNewman  BVarady  A Evaluation of a treatment approach combining nicotine gum with self-guided behavioral treatments for smoking relapse prevention. J Consult Clin Psychol 1990;5885- 92
PubMed Link to Article
Fortmann  SPKillen  JD Nicotine gum and self-help behavioral treatment for smoking relapse prevention: results from a trial using population-based recruitment. J Consult Clin Psychol 1995;63460- 468
PubMed Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CDGinsberg  DBenowitz  NLJones  RT Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment: a placebo controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 1987;55603- 605
PubMed Link to Article
Hajek  PTaylor  TZMills  P Brief intervention during hospital admission to help patients to give up smoking after myocardial infarction and bypass surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002;32487- 89
PubMed Link to Article
Ershoff  DHQuinn  VPMullen  PD Relapse prevention among women who stop smoking early in pregnancy: a randomized clinical trial of a self-help intervention. Am J Prev Med 1995;11178- 184
PubMed
Secker-Walker  RHSolomon  LJFlynn  BS  et al.  Smoking relapse prevention counseling during prenatal and early postnatal care. Am J Prev Med 1995;1186- 93
PubMed
Lowe  JBWindsor  RBalanda  KPWoodby  L Smoking relapse prevention methods for pregnant women: a formative evaluation. Am J Health Promot 1997;11244- 246
PubMed Link to Article
Secker-Walker  RHSolomon  LJFlynn  BSSkelly  JMMead  PB Smoking relapse prevention during pregnancy: a trial of coordinated advice from physicians and individual counseling. Am J Prev Med 1998;1525- 31
PubMed Link to Article
McBride  CMCurry  SJLando  HAPirie  PLGrothaus  LCNelson  JC Prevention of relapse in women who quit smoking during pregnancy. Am J Public Health 1999;89706- 711
PubMed Link to Article
Hajek  PWest  RLee  A  et al.  Randomized controlled trial of a midwife-delivered brief smoking cessation intervention in pregnancy. Addiction 2001;96485- 494
PubMed Link to Article
Severson  HHAndrews  JALichtenstein  EWall  MAkers  L Reducing maternal smoking and relapse: long-term evaluation of a pediatric intervention. Prev Med 1997;26120- 130
PubMed Link to Article
Ratner  PAJohnson  JLBottorff  JLDahinten  SHall  W Twelve-month follow-up of a smoking relapse prevention intervention for postpartum women. Addict Behav 2000;2581- 92
PubMed Link to Article
Van't Hof  SMWall  MADowler  DWStark  MJ Randomised controlled trial of a postpartum relapse prevention intervention. Tob Control 2000;9 ((suppl 3)) III64- III66
PubMed Link to Article
Hasuo  STanaka  HOshima  A Efficacy of a smoking relapse prevention program by postdischarge telephone contacts: a randomized trial [in Japanese]. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi 2004;51403- 412
PubMed
Klesges  RCHaddock  CKLando  HTalcott  GW Efficacy of forced smoking cessation and an adjunctive behavioral treatment on long-term smoking rates. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67952- 958
PubMed Link to Article
Conway  TLWoodruff  SIEdwards  CCElder  JPHurtado  SLHervig  LK Operation Stay Quit: evaluation of two smoking relapse prevention strategies for women after involuntary cessation during US Navy recruit training. Mil Med 2004;169236- 242
PubMed
Brandon  THCollins  BNJuliano  LMLazev  AB Preventing relapse among former smokers: a comparison of minimal interventions through telephone and mail. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68103- 113
PubMed Link to Article
Brandon  THMeade  CDHerzog  TAChirikos  TNWebb  MSCantor  AB Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a minimal intervention to prevent smoking relapse: dismantling the effects of amount of content versus contact. J Consult Clin Psychol 2004;72797- 808
PubMed Link to Article
Borland  RBalmford  JHunt  D The effectiveness of personally tailored computer-generated advice letters for smoking cessation. Addiction 2004;99369- 377
PubMed Link to Article
Powell  DRMcCann  BS The effects of a multiple treatment program and maintenance procedures on smoking cessation. Prev Med 1981;1094- 104
PubMed Link to Article
Stevens  VJHollis  JF Preventing smoking relapse, using an individually tailored skills-training technique. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989;57420- 424
PubMed Link to Article
Razavi  DVandecasteele  HPrimo  C  et al.  Maintaining abstinence from cigarette smoking: effectiveness of group counselling and factors predicting outcome. Eur J Cancer 1999;351238- 1247
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  SSJorenby  DEFiore  MC  et al.  Strike while the iron is hot: can stepped-care treatments resurrect relapsing smokers? J Consult Clin Psychol 2001;69429- 439
PubMed Link to Article
Mermelstein  RHedeker  DWong  SC Extended telephone counseling for smoking cessation: does content matter? J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71565- 574
PubMed Link to Article
Hays  JTHurt  RDRigotti  NA  et al.  Sustained-release bupropion for pharmacologic relapse prevention after smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2001;135423- 433
PubMed Link to Article
Hurt  RDKrook  JECroghan  IT  et al.  Nicotine patch therapy based on smoking rate followed by bupropion for prevention of relapse to smoking. J Clin Oncol 2003;21914- 920
PubMed Link to Article
Hall  SMRugg  DTunstall  CJones  RT Preventing relapse to cigarette smoking by behavioral skill training. J Consult Clin Psychol 1984;52372- 382
PubMed Link to Article
Davis  JRGlaros  AG Relapse prevention and smoking cessation. Addict Behav 1986;11105- 114
PubMed Link to Article
Emmons  KMEmont  SLCollins  RLWeidner  G Relapse prevention versus broad spectrum treatment for smoking cessation: a comparison of efficacy. J Subst Abuse 1988;179- 89
PubMed Link to Article
Becona  EVazquez  FL The course of relapse across 36 months for smokers from a smoking-cessation program. Psychol Rep 1998;82143- 146
PubMed Link to Article
Niaura  RAbrams  DBShadel  WGRohsenow  DJMonti  PMSirota  AD Cue exposure treatment for smoking relapse prevention: a controlled clinical trial. Addiction 1999;94685- 696
PubMed Link to Article
Killen  JDMaccoby  NTaylor  CB Nicotine gum and self-regulation training in smoking relapse prevention. Behav Ther 1984;15234- 248
Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CRugg  DJones  RBenowitz  N Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment in smoking cessation. J Consult Clin Psychol 1985;53256- 258
PubMed Link to Article
Brandon  THZelman  DCBaker  TB Effects of maintenance sessions on smoking relapse: delaying the inevitable? J Consult Clin Psychol 1987;55780- 782
PubMed Link to Article
Lifrak  PGariti  PAlterman  AI  et al.  Results of two levels of adjunctive treatment used with the nicotine patch. Am J Addict 1997;693- 98
PubMed Link to Article
Shoptaw  SRotheram-Fuller  EYang  X  et al.  Smoking cessation in methadone maintenance. Addiction 2002;971317- 1328
PubMed Link to Article
Lando  HAPirie  PLRoski  JMcGovern  PGSchmid  LA Promoting abstinence among relapsed chronic smokers: the effect of telephone support. Am J Public Health 1996;861786- 1790
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 49

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com