Aversive smoking for smoking cessation.


Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 (3):CD000546

Department of Human Science and Medical Ethics, St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Turner Street, London, UK, E1 2AD.

Background: Aversion therapy pairs the pleasurable stimulus of smoking a cigarette with some unpleasant stimulus. The objective is to extinguish the urge to smoke.

Objectives: This review has two aims: First, to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking and other aversive methods in helping smokers to stop smoking; Second, to determine whether there is a dose-response effect on smoking cessation at different levels of aversive stimulation.

Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies which evaluated any technique of aversive smoking.

Selection Criteria: Randomized trials which compared aversion treatments with 'inactive' procedures or which compared aversion treatments of different intensity for smoking cessation. Trials must have reported follow up of least six months from beginning of treatment.

Data Collection And Analysis: We extracted data in duplicate on the study population, the type of aversion treatment, the outcome measure, method of randomization and completeness of follow up. The outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at maximum follow up, using the strictest measure reported by the authors. Subjects lost to follow up were regarded as smokers. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effect model.

Main Results: Twenty-five trials met the inclusion criteria. Twelve included rapid smoking and nine used other aversion methods. Ten trials included two or more conditions allowing assessment of a dose-response to aversive stimulation. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence following rapid smoking compared to control was 1.98 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.36 to 2.90). Several factors suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously. A funnel plot of included studies was asymmetric, due to the relative absence of small studies with negative results. Most trials had a number of serious methodological problems likely to lead to spurious positive results. The only trial using biochemical validation of all self reported cessation gave a non-significant result. Other aversion methods were not shown to be effective (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.82). There was a borderline dose-response to the level of aversive stimulation (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.78).

Reviewers' Conclusions: The existing studies provide insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking, or whether there is a dose-response to aversive stimulation. Milder versions of aversive smoking seem to lack specific efficacy. Rapid smoking is an unproven method with sufficient indications of promise to warrant evaluation using modern rigorous methodology.

Download full-text PDF

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000546.pub2DOI Listing
November 2004
224 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rapid smoking
efficacy rapid
aversive stimulation
smoking cessation
dose-response aversive
compared aversion
odds ratio
95% confidence
aversion treatments
outcome measure
aversion methods
aversive smoking
determine efficacy
assessment dose-response
ten trials


(Supplied by CrossRef)
Comparison of symbolic and overt aversion in the self-control of smoking
Barbarin et al.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978
The effects of rapid smoking and hypnosis in the treatment of smoking behavior
Barkley et al.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 1977
Effects of maintenance sessions on smoking relapse: delaying the inevitable?
Brandon et al.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1987
Rapid puffing as a treatment component of a community smoking program
Curtis et al.
Journal of Community Psychology 1976
A multiple-component treatment approach to smoking reduction
Elliott et al.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978
Searching for the simple answer to cure the smoking habit
Fee et al.
Health and Social Service Journal 1977

Similar Publications