4.5 Article

Perceived risks and benefits of smoking cessation: Gender-specific predictors of motivation and treatment outcome

Journal

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 423-435

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.05.027

Keywords

smoking cessation; gender differences; perceived risks; perceived benefits; motivation; treatment outcome

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA068427] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [P50DA13334] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The primary aim of this study was to examine gender differences in perceived risks and benefits of smoking cessation and their relationship to pretreatment motivation and treatment outcome. No validated measures that comprehensively assess perceived risks and benefits associated with smoking cessation were available in the literature; consequently, we developed a self-report instrument [Perceived Risks and Benefits Questionnaire (PRBQ)] for this purpose. A sample of 573 treatment-seeking smokers (48% female) entering smoking cessation trials completed the PRBQ, and its association with treatment outcome was assessed in a subsample of 93 participants. Overall, the PRBQ demonstrated good psychometric properties. Females indicated greater likelihood ratings of perceived risks and benefits than males. For women and men, perceived benefits were positively associated with motivation, and perceived risks were negatively associated with motivation and treatment outcome. Women evidenced stronger associations between perceived risks and pretreatment motivation, and treatment outcome. Knowledge of perceived risks and benefits associated with smoking cessation is critical for public education campaigns and could inform intervention strategies designed to modify sex-specific beliefs associated with lowered behavioral intentions to quit smoking. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available