A planning intervention to quit smoking in single-smoking couples: does partner involvement improve effectiveness?

Abstract

Objective

Smoking cessation interventions that use implementation intentions have shown promising results. Implementation intentions are if-then plans that specify certain behaviour within a situational context. This study examines whether dyadic planning (i.e., involving a non-smoking partner) is more effective than individual planning in quitting smoking.

Design

This longitudinal single-blind randomized controlled trial involves a baseline questionnaire, end-of-day measurements for three weeks, and a follow-up questionnaire after three months. Single-smoking couples were randomized to a dyadic or individual planning condition. After the intervention, which 176 couples received, smokers attempted to quit smoking, and the diary measurements started.

Main Outcome Measures

smoking abstinence, number of cigarettes smoked and relationship satisfaction.

Results

At follow-up, both planning groups showed similar quit rates (33%, dyadic; 30%, individual) and a similar significant decline in number of cigarettes smoked (almost 50%). For most smokers, the smoking pattern shown in the diary seemed to be indicative of smoking behaviour at follow-up. Relationship satisfaction declined minimally, in both intervention groups and in both smokers and partners.

Conclusion

The involvement of a non-smoking partner in the planning did not increase its effectiveness. However, couple participation and daily measurements during a quit attempt could be important components of future interventions.

Keywords:

• Smoking cessation
• Relationship satisfaction
• Couple
• Non-smoking partner
• Randomized controlled trial
• Implementation intentions

Acknowledgements

We thank Sabine Euwema and Ilse Booijen for help with the data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Anne Buitenhuis, upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This study is funded by the University of Groningen and the University Medical Center Groningen. This funding source had no role in the design of this study, its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen.