A bidirectional path analysis model of smoking cessation self‐efficacy and concurrent smoking status: impact on abstinence outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-efficacy is routinely associated with abstinence in the addictions literature, and is a major component relapse-prevention models. The magnitude of this relationship has been brought into question following equivocal results in studies controlling for concurrent smoking status. The aim of our study was to clarify the relationship between cessation self-efficacy, smoking status, and cessation outcomes in a cohort of treatment-seeking smokers. Smokers participating in the FLEX trial, a randomized trial investigating the efficacy of three pharmacologic treatments for smoking cessation, completed questionnaires assessing cessation self-efficacy at baseline and at weeks 1, 3, 5 and 10 post-target quit date; smoking status was verified using expired carbon monoxide. Structural models were fit in order to ascertain the relationship between cessation self-efficacy and concurrent smoking at each time-point, and to assess the association between cessation self-efficacy, smoking and seven-day point prevalence smoking status at week 10. A total of 737 treatment-seeking smokers participated. In our path model, self-efficacy and smoking status at all time points were associated with week 10 abstinence (except week 3 self-efficacy), after controlling these values' previous time-points. All direct pathways between cessation self-efficacy and smoking were also significant, supporting a bidirectional relationship. Our results support a bidirectional and reciprocal relationship between cessation self-efficacy and concurrent smoking behavior; participants with higher confidence were more likely to be smoke-free, and concurrent smoking status predicted levels of confidence over the ensuing weeks. Both measures were associated with week 10 abstinence. Our results indicate that while correlated, both cessation self-efficacy and current smoking behavior during a cessation attempt are important independent markers of ultimate cessation success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".