4.5 Article

The relation between processes-of-change and stage-transition in smoking behavior: A two-year longitudinal test of the Transtheoretical Model

期刊

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 1331-1345

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.10.011

关键词

transtheoretical; smoking; longitudinal; stage-transition; processes-of-change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To test the theoretical predictions of the Transtheoretical Model regarding process-use and progressive stagetransition in relation to smoking behavior. Design and Setting: Secondary data analyses of a 2-year longitudinal worksite-based smoking-cessation study [Working Well Trial (Abrams, D., Boutwell, W., Grizzle, J., Heimendinger, J., Sorensen, G., & Vames, J. (1994). Cancer control at the workplace: The Working Well trial. Preventative Medicine, 23, 15-27)]. Findings: The results demonstrated some support for the predictions generated from the Model: those making the transition from the Precontemplation stage to the Contemplation stage showed a heightened use of experiential processes-of-change from the baseline measurement to the 2-year follow-up, while those remaining in the Precontemplation stage reported no differences across time in their ratings of experiential and behavioral processesof-change. Contrary to Transtheoretical Model's claims, however, smokers moving from the Contemplation stage to the Preparation stage over the 2-year period did not manifest an increasing use of experiential or behavioral processes over time in comparison to their counterparts remaining in the Contemplation stage. Conclusions: Given the lack of longitudinal relation between process-use and the Contemplation-to-Preparation transition, the findings in this paper undermine the Transtheoretical Model's central tenet that stage-matched processes-of-change serve as the primary mechanisms of stage progression from the Contemplation stage to the Preparation stage. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据