Observational studyAddictive behaviors2016
Abstinence expectancies and quit attempts.
Observational study in Addictive behaviors, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceived risks and benefits of quitting smoking in a sample of adults living with HIV/AIDS.AIDS care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSeveral scales have been developed to measure expectancies about smoking cessation. This secondary analysis tested the reliability and validity of one of the most commonly used expectancy measures - the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Quitting Scale (PRBQ).
methodsSmokers (n=143) who planned to quit at some point in the next 3months entered an observational study in which they called an Interactive Voice Response system nightly for 3months to report quit attempts and abstinence. They completed the PRBQ at baseline and the end of 1, 2 and 3months. No treatment was provided.
resultsThe Risks scores and Benefit scores of the PRBQ had high internal reliability (alpha=0.88-0.96 across administrations) and high test-retest stability (ICC=0.67-0.80), but poor to moderate concurrent validity (correlation with other cessation measures=0.09-0.52), and poor predictive validity (no significant prediction of quit attempts or duration of abstinence). Results were similar for men and women.
conclusionsThe PRBQ appears to be reliable but, similar to other scales of cessation expectancies, its validity appears to be poor. The face valid notion that expectations influence quitting requires further testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.