Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35917763›Full record

Trial reportDrug and alcohol dependence2022

Approach bias retraining to augment smoking cessation: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

Jasper A J Smits, Mike Rinck, David Rosenfield, Christopher G Beevers, Richard A Brown, Haley E Conroy Busch, Christina D Dutcher, Alex Perrone, Michael J Zvolensky, Lorra Garey

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Approach Bias and Tobacco Craving as Mechanisms of the Effect of Approach Bias Retraining on Smoking Cessation.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Jasper A J SmitsInstitute for Mental Health Research and Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA. Electronic address: smits@utexas.edu.
Mike RinckBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
David RosenfieldDepartment of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA.
Christopher G BeeversInstitute for Mental Health Research and Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
Richard A BrownInstitute for Mental Health Research and Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
Haley E Conroy BuschDepartment of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, USA.
Christina D DutcherInstitute for Mental Health Research and Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
Alex PerroneInstitute for Mental Health Research and Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
Michael J ZvolenskyDepartment of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, USA.
Lorra GareyDepartment of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, USA.

Funding

Approach Bias Retraining to Augment Smoking CessationR34DA044431 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI SMITS, JASPER · 2017 to 2019
$669k
NIDA NIH HHS R34 DA044431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproach tendency to smoking-related cues has been associated with greater cravings, nicotine dependence, and the likelihood of relapse. In this pilot randomized clinical trial, we examined the efficacy of approach bias retraining (ABR; i.e., increasing avoidance tendency) for enhancing standard smoking cessation treatment (ST).

methodsAdult smokers (N = 96) motivated to quit were randomly assigned to 7 weekly in-person treatment sessions consisting of either (1) cognitive-behavioral therapy for smoking cessation (ST) and ABR (ST+ABR) or ST and sham retraining (ST+Sham). All participants also received optional nicotine replacement therapy for up to 8 weeks following the scheduled quit date (week 6). We measured avoidance tendency from weeks 1-7. Point prevalence abstinence (PPA) and prolonged abstinence (PA) were measured up to 3 months following the quit attempt (week 18 follow-up).

resultsConsistent with our hypothesis, participants in ST+ABR evidenced higher abstinence rates than those in ST+Sham at the final follow-up (b=0.71, 95 % CI: [0.14, 1.27], t[1721]=2.46, p = 0.014, OR=2.03, 95 % CI: [1.15, 3.57]). Specifically, PPA and PA rates were 50 % and 66 % in ST+ABR compared to 31 % and 47 % in ST+Sham. As expected, participants assigned to the ST+ABR condition also showed a greater training-compatible increase in avoidance tendency scores relative to those assigned to the ST+Sham condition (b=248.06, 95 % CI: [148.51, 347,62], t[84]=4.96, p < .001).

conclusionsThe current pilot randomized clinical trial provides initial evidence for the efficacy of integrating standard smoking cessation with ABR. These findings encourage the testing of the long-term efficacy and mechanisms of action of this integrated intervention.

Indexed as

Smoking CessationTobacco Use DisorderAdultHumansPilot ProjectsSmokingTobacco Use Cessation DevicesApproach-avoidance biasBehavioral interventionCognitive bias modificationNicotine-replacement therapySmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID35917763
PMCPMC10041775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.