Efficacy of Mindfulness-based Addiction Treatment (MBAT) for Smoking Cessation and Lapse Recovery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Type
Summary

Objective: To compare the efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Addiction Treatment (MBAT) to a Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) that matched MBAT on treatment contact time, and a Usual Care (UC) condition that comprised brief individual counseling. Method: Participants (N = 412) were 48.2% African American, 41.5% non-Latino White, 5.4% Latino, and 4.9% other, and 57.6% reported a total annual household income < $30,000. The majority of participants were female (54.9%). Mean cigarettes per day was 19.9 (SD = 10.1). Following the baseline visit, participants were randomized to UC (n = 103), CBT (n = 155), or MBAT (n = 154). All participants were given self-help materials and nicotine patch therapy. CBT and MBAT groups received 8 2-hr in-person group counseling sessions. UC participants received 4 brief individual counseling sessions. Biochemically verified smoking abstinence was assessed 4 and 26 weeks after the quit date. Results: Logistic random effects model analyses over time indicated no overall significant treatment effects (completers only: F(2, 236) = 0.29, p = .749; intent-to-treat: F(2, 401) = 0.9, p = .407). Among participants classified as smoking at the last treatment session, analyses examining the recovery of abstinence revealed a significant overall treatment effect, F(2, 103) = 4.41, p = .015 (MBAT vs. CBT: OR = 4.94, 95% CI: 1.47 to 16.59, p = .010, Effect Size = .88; MBAT vs. UC: OR = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.04 to 16.75, p = .043, Effect Size = .79). Conclusion: Although there were no overall significant effects of treatment on abstinence, MBAT may be more effective than CBT or UC in promoting recovery from lapses.

Citation
Vidrine, J. I., Spears, C. A., Heppner, W. L., Reitzel, L. R., Marcus, M. T., Cinciripini, P. M., … Wetter, D. W. (2016). Efficacy of mindfulness-based addiction treatment (MBAT) for smoking cessation and lapse recovery: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(9), 824–838. doi:10.1037/ccp0000117