Skip to main content

Table 2 Cessation studies – methodological design

From: Effects of sixty six adolescent tobacco use cessation trials and seventeen prospective studies of self-initiated quitting

Investigators Methodological design Biochemical validation?
Ary et al. Experimental – two condition: multigrade level (6th through 11th) social influence prevention, standard care; also parent messages randomly assigned to 12 schools within program condition Yes
Aveyard et al. Experimental – two condition: expert system and three class sessions based on transtheoretical model, standard health education (a little to motivate quitting) No
Baskerville, Hotte, Dunkley Quasi-experimental – quit-and-win contest and smoke free month, standard care control Yes
Bauman et al. Experimental – family program, standard care control No
Beaglehole et al. Quasi-experimental – classroom program, standard care control No
Biener et al. Single-group – random digit dialing No
Chakravorty Experimental – three condition: mintsnuff, chewing gum control, lecture only Yes
Charlton Quasi-experimental – pilot clinic ("courses"), self-help Yes
Cinnomin, Sussman Experimental – two condition: social influence/stress-coping, chemical addiction Yes
Colby et al. Experimental – two condition: motivational interview, brief advice Yes
Coleman-Wallace et al. Quasi-experimental – three condition: Tobacco Education Program (TEG) for precontemplators, Tobacco Awareness Program (TAP) for those who want to quit, control; 57% mandatory-punish (in TEG) Yes
Corby et al. Single-group – within subject replicated ABA design, 1 week each with a two week follow-up Yes
Digiusto Quasi-experimental – three condition: lunchtime quit clinic, class-time quit clinic, standard care control Yes
Dino et al. Quasi-experimental – two condition: not on tobacco (NOT), brief intervention Yes
Eakin, Severson, Glasgow Single-group – within subject replicated AB design Yes
Etter, Ronchi, Perneger Quasi-experimental – two condition: smoke-free program-four buildings/limited areas/cessation counseling service, control (other buildings) No
Fibkins Single-group – 1 group clinic No
Forster et al. Experimental – two condition: policy program, standard care control No
Glasgow et al. Experimental – two condition: brief intervention, simple advice to quit smoking Yes
Glover Single-group – two pilot clinics Yes
Goldberg, Gorn Quasi-experimental – two condition: personal involvement, standard care control No, did use behavioral observation
Greenberg, Deputat Quasi-experimental – four condition: fear, facts, values, standard care control No
Hafstad, Aaro, Langmark Single-group – mass media campaign for teens No
Horn et al. Quasi-experimental – two condition: not on tobacco (NOT), brief intervention Yes
Horswell, Horton Quasi-experimental – peer led school clinic, standard care control No
Hotte et al. Quasi-experimental – quit 4 life small groups plus kit, quit 4 life self-help kit-only No
Hurt et al. Single-group – nicotine patch therapy Yes
Jason, Mollica, Ferrone Quasi-experimental – 3 condition: role-play plus discussion, discussion-only, control Yes
Jerome Single-group – Life Sign computer assisted Yes
Johnson et al. Quasi-experimental – 4 condition: social curriculum/familiar media role models, social curriculum/unfamiliar media role models, health curriculum/familiar media role models, health curriculum/unfamiliar media role models Yes
Kempf, Stanley Quasi-experimental – 2 condition: smoke-free policy, standard care control No
Killen et al. Quasi-experimental – 2 condition: special intervention, standard care control Yes
Lampkin Single-group – pretest-posttest (averaged follow-up) No
Librett Single-group – pretest-posttest No
Lotecka, McWhinney Quasi-experimental – two condition: matched groups: coping, information No
Matson-Koffman, Miller Single-group – quit and win/tobacco free teens, school clinic NR
McDonald, Roberts, Deeschaemaker Single-group – consecutive cohorts No
Mills, Ewy, Dizon Single-group – two cohorts, senior high and junior high No
Murray, Prokhorov, Harty Quasi-experimental – two condition: statewide anti-smoking campaign in Minnesota, Wisconsin as control; sequential 9th grade cohorts No
Myers, Brown Single-group – consecutive cohorts No
Myers, Brown, Kelly Single-group – consecutive cohorts at three facilities Yes
Pallonen Single-group – feasibility study Yes
Patten et al. Single-group – retrospective cohort study Yes, at baseline only
Patterson Single-group – feasibility study No
Pendell Single-group – consecutive cohorts No
Perry et al. Quasi-experimental – two condition: special intervention, standard care control Yes
Perry et al. Experimental – three condition: long-term health effects, social consequences, physiological effects; also two teaching modalities (teacher, college student) Yes
Peters Single-group – quit 4 life self-help kit requesters No
Peterson, Clark Quasi-experimental – two condition: discussion group, standard care control group No
Popham et al. Single-group – state-wide: looks at those exposed and not exposed to campaign No
Prince Quasi-experimental – three condition: peer led, adult led, standard care control group No
Quinlan, McCaul Experimental – three condition: stage-matched (to precontemplation stages of change), stage-mismatched (action material offered), assessment only No
Rigotti et al. Quasi-experimental – two condition: enforcement or non-enforcement of tobacco sales laws No
Skjoldebrand, Gahnberg Single-group – all teens who came to the clinic for check-ups No
Smith et al. Single-group – non-randomized open label trial Yes
St. Pierre, Shute, Jaycox Single-group-group clinic pilot of ACS I-Quit No
Suedfeld et al. Experimental – four condition: use of sensory deprivation (Senory D) chamber or not, with a tobacco use health consequences message or not No
Sussman, Burton et al. Experimental – three condition: psychosocial dependency, chemical addiction, wait list control Yes
Sussman, Dent, Lichtman Experimental – three condition: clinic plus school-as-community, clinic only, standard care control Yes
Sussman, Dent, Stacy Experimental – three condition: health educator led classroom, self-instruction, standard care control Yes
Townsend et al. Single-group – "1-shot" No
Vartiainen et al. Single-group-quit-and win approach Yes
Wakefield et al. Nation-wide survey of the extent of smoking restrictions on teen smoking No
Weisman et al. Single-group-AB design Yes
Zavela, Harrison, Owens Experimental – three condition: mint snuff, bubble gum, comparison (no oral substitute lecture-only group) No
Zheng Single-group – quit clinic pilot Yes
  1. NR = not reported.