Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBegh, Rachna
dc.contributor.authorMunafò, Marcus R
dc.contributor.authorShiffman, Saul
dc.contributor.authorFerguson, Stuart G
dc.contributor.authorNichols, Linda
dc.contributor.authorMohammed, Mohammed A
dc.contributor.authorHolder, Roger L
dc.contributor.authorSutton, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorAveyard, Paul
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-15T10:55:53Z
dc.date.available2018-06-15T10:55:53Z
dc.date.issued2015-04-01
dc.identifier.issn0376-8716
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/277083
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown that attentional bias for smoking-related cues is associated with increased craving and relapse. Laboratory experiments have shown that manipulating attentional bias may change craving. Interventions to reduce attentional bias could reduce relapse in smokers seeking to quit. We report a clinical trial of attentional retraining in treatment-seeking smokers. METHODS: This was a double-blind randomised controlled trial that took place in UK smoking cessation clinics. Smokers interested in quitting were randomised to five weekly sessions of attentional retraining (N=60) or placebo training (N = 58) using a modified visual probe task from one week prior to quit day. Both groups received 21 mg nicotine patches (from quit day onwards) and behavioural support. Primary outcomes included change in attentional bias reaction times four weeks after quit day on the visual probe task and craving measured weekly using the Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale. Secondary outcomes were changes in withdrawal symptoms, time to first lapse and prolonged abstinence. RESULTS: No attentional bias towards smoking cues was found in the sample at baseline (mean difference = 3 ms, 95% CI = -2, 9). Post-training bias was not significantly lower in the retraining group compared with the placebo group (mean difference = -9 ms, 95% CI = -20, 2). There was no difference between groups in change in craving (p = 0.89) and prolonged abstinence at four weeks (risk ratio = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.70, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Taken with one other trial, there appears to be no effect from clinic-based attentional retraining using the visual probe task. Attentional retraining conducted out of clinic may prove more effective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Trials ISRCTN 54375405.
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland Ltd
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectTobacco Use Disorder
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.subjectCombined Modality Therapy
dc.subjectDouble-Blind Method
dc.subjectSmoking Cessation
dc.subjectCues
dc.subjectAttention
dc.subjectReaction Time
dc.subjectBehavior Therapy
dc.subjectTime Factors
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectYoung Adult
dc.subjectCraving
dc.subjectTobacco Use Cessation Devices
dc.titleLack of attentional retraining effects in cigarette smokers attempting cessation: a proof of concept double-blind randomised controlled trial.
dc.typeArticle
prism.endingPage165
prism.publicationDate2015
prism.publicationNameDrug Alcohol Depend
prism.startingPage158
prism.volume149
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.24378
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-01-28
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.01.041
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-04
dc.contributor.orcidSutton, Stephen [0000-0003-1610-0404]
dc.identifier.eissn1879-0046
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
cam.issuedOnline2015-02-09


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record