Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30390646›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2018

A randomised controlled trial examining the efficacy of smoking-related response inhibition training in smokers: a study protocol.

Petra K Staiger, Melissa J Hayden, Karen Guo, Laura K Hughes, Jason Bos, Natalia S Lawrence

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Petra K StaigerSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. petra.staiger@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6968-5015
Melissa J HaydenSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Karen GuoSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Laura K HughesSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Jason BosSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Natalia S LawrenceDepartment of Psychology, University of Exeter, Perry Road, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking is one of the leading preventable causes of illness and premature death worldwide. Despite a variety of effective treatments, relapse rates remain high, and novel, innovative interventions are needed in order to reduce the global prevalence of smoking. Research has indicated that deficits in the ability to inhibit a response (referred to as response inhibition) is a predictor of relapse and subsequently, targeting this potentially modifiable risk factor may lead to improvements in smoking outcomes. Indeed, in recent years, stimulus-specific response inhibition training has emerged as a potentially efficacious intervention to reduce unwanted/unhealthy behaviours such as alcohol and unhealthy food consumption. As such, the present trial is the first to evaluate the real-world efficacy of response inhibition smoking training (INST) in a sample of adult heavy smokers. METHODS/

designThis randomised controlled trial will recruit nicotine dependent smokers aged between 18 and 60 using social media and advertisements in Victoria, Australia. The sample target was 150 to account for drop out and non-adherence. Once informed consent has been obtained, participants complete a range of baseline measures during a face to face interview. Participants are randomly allocated to one of two online training conditions: an intervention training group (INST), which requires participants to exercise response inhibition towards smoking-related stimuli; or an active control group, which requires participants to exercise response inhibition towards household items and does not include any smoking-related stimuli. They complete the first training session during the interview to ensure the training protocol is clear. Both groups are instructed to complete a further 13 training sessions (1 per day) at home on their computer and follow-up phone calls will be conducted at three time points: post-intervention, one-month and three months. The primary outcomes are: a) rates of smoking cessation and; b) reduction in the quantity of average daily smoking at post-intervention, one and three months follow-up. DISCUSSION: There is a pressing need to develop novel and innovative smoking interventions. If proven to be effective, INST could make a highly cost-effective contribution to improvements in smoking intervention outcomes.

trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 17th February 2017. Trial ID: ACTRN12617000252314 .

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmokersSmokingSmoking CessationSmoking PreventionTreatment OutcomeVictoriaYoung AdultCognitive trainingCravingDevaluationeHealthInhibitory controlInterventionResponse inhibitionSmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID30390646
PMCPMC6215605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.