Smoking continues to take an enormous toll on society and although

Smoking continues to take an enormous toll on society and although most smokers would like to quit most are unsuccessful using existing therapies. 2011-2012 inside a medium sized Midwestern city. A significant difference was not found in the primary end result; intent-to-treat biochemically confirmed 6-month smoking abstinence rates were Mindfulness = 25.0% Control= 17.9% (= 0.35). Variations favoring the mindfulness condition were found on steps of urges and changes in mindfulness perceived stress and experiential avoidance. While no significant variations were found in quit rates the mindfulness treatment resulted in positive results. -checks and chi-squared checks were used to compare organizations on baseline characteristics. Logistic regression was used to compute odds ratios (OR) estimations and confidence intervals for smoking abstinence. Pearson correlations were used to compute associations between secondary end result steps and continuous smoking results. Univariate ANCOVAs were conducted to identify between-group variations on switch in repeated self-report steps. ANCOVAs controlled for abstinence status due to probability that abstinence might bias ratings on self-report steps. ANCOVAs were tested and met the homogeneity of regression slopes assumption. All analyses were carried out using SPSS XXI. 2.1 Power Analysis Power analysis was based on effects reported by Brewer et al. (2011a) who found out biochemically confirmed 17-week abstinence rates for mindfulness teaching (MT) = 31% vs. 6% for Freedom from Smoking. We planned to use an enhanced version of FFS and expected that at most this enhancement might yield 2X the abstinence rate as Brewer’s control (12%). Analysis of organizations with equal proportion with power = 80% alpha=.05 (two tailed test) showed that we would need N=146 to detect 31% vs. 12% effect size between organizations. Due to monetary constraints final enrollment was N=135 representing 93% of the 146 enrollment goal or power = 76%. 3 Results 3.1 Recruitment Recruitment attempts over 12 months led to 707 callers reached for telephone testing. After declines exclusions and no-shows 40 participants chose low intensity (QL) TCS PIM-1 4a and 135 participants were randomized to MTS (= 67) or FFS-E (= 68; Number 1). 3.2 Demographics Randomized participants (MTS and FFS-E) showed a mean age of 44.50 years (= 12.73) 46.7% female 88.1% Caucasian and 64.9% with education beyond high school (Table 2). There were no significant variations between MTS and FFS-E on any baseline variable. QL compared to MTS/FFS-E showed no statistically significant baseline variations on age gender and years smoked but did show significant variations on Rabbit Polyclonal to OR10R2. steps of race education and quantity of prior quit efforts (Table 2). Table 2 Participant Baseline Characteristics. 3.3 Pharmacotherapy Participants in each intervention received two weeks of nicotine patches (14mg for ≤10 and 21 mg >10 smokes per day). A total of 71.7% of study participants reported that they completed the two weeks of nicotine patches (MTS = 74.4% FFS-E = 81.5% QL = 52.0%) with no reportable medication reactions and no significant variations in abstinence comparing patch users to non-users. Participants were asked whether they used NRT as prescribed (starting on (or near) the quit day time and continuing for 2 weeks). In an analysis of all participants together those who reported using nicotine patches were significantly more likely TCS PIM-1 4a to be abstinent at TCS PIM-1 4a both time points but with larger variations in the more proximal post treatment period. At 4-weeks TCS PIM-1 4a post stop (NRT = 53.5% No-NRT = 29.6% t(109) = -2.19 p = .03) and 24 weeks post quit (NRT = 29.8% vs. No NRT = 14.8 (t(109) = -1.54 p = .09). When treatment organizations (MTS FFS-E QL) were analyzed individually use of nicotine patch failed to forecast abstinence. 3.4 Attrition and attendance Treatment attrition was defined for MTS /FFS-E participants as not attending the Quit Day time Retreat and defined for QL participants as not reporting a quit attempt on their assigned quit day time. Intervention attrition was not significantly associated with any baseline variable and did not differ significantly between organizations (MTS = 32.4% FFS-E = 26.9% QL = TCS PIM-1 4a 42.5%). Attrition rates at assessment appointments were not significantly different between organizations (4-week assessment check out: MTS TCS PIM-1 4a = 39.7% FFS-E 32.8% QL = 35.5%) and (24-week assessment check out: MTS = 57.4% FFS-E = 55.2% QL= 60%). Class attendance at eight.