Introduction
Method
Systematic Literature Search
Methodological Assessment of Studies
Effect Sizes
Results
Participant Characteristics
Study | Number | Experimental conditions | Baseline sample characteristics (mean except where indicated) | Follow-up details (instructions for use of strategy; percent retention) | Behavioural and other PFM-consistent outcomes | Outcomes relating to the frequency and/or intensity of internal experiences | Credibility/manipulation check |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Beadman et al. (2015) | 73 | Experimental: defusion. Written instructions: 813 words including cue reactivity instructions Suppression control: written instructions: 810 words including cue reactivity instructions Active control: reappraisal (written instructions: 791 words including cue reactivity instructions) | Age: 24.87 Male: 51.0% FTND: 5.14 Cigs/day: 13.00 Abstinence: 5.61 h | Explicit instructions to continue to use assigned strategy 24 h (90.41%) 7 days (71.23%; imputation of missing values) |
Compared suppression
Latency to smoke ↑ Post-session
Number of cigarettes ↓7 days
Experiential avoidance ↓ In session
Compared to reappraisal
Latency to smoke ↔ Post-session
Number of cigarettes (TLFB)↔ 7 days
|
Compared to suppression
Craving (QSU brief) ↔ In session, 24 h, 7 days
Negative affect (PANAS) ↔ In session
Compared to reappraisal
Craving (QSU brief) ↔ In session, 24 h, 7 days
Negative affect (PANAS) ↔ In session
| Written descriptions consistent with strategy use Credibility (CEQ)↑ Experimental v control
|
2. Bowen and Marlatt (2009) | 123 | Experimental: mindfulness (urge surfing). Audio instructions: 11 min including cue reactivity Active control: self-selected coping (to use usual coping). Audio instruction: 11 min including cue reactivity | Age: 20.33 Male: 73.2% FTND: 2.31 Cigs/day: 5.33 Abstinence: 17.20 h | No details about instructions on strategy use during FU 24 h (94.30%) 7 days (90.20%) |
Compared to self-guided task
Number of cigarettes ↓ 7 days
|
Compared to self-guided task
Craving (QSU brief) ↔ In session, 24 h, 7 days
Negative affect (PANAS) ↔ In session, 24 h, 7 days
| None |
3. Cropley et al. (2007) | 30 | Experimental: mindfulness (body scan). Audio instructions: 10 min Inactive control: control audio: 10-min audio | Age: 25.45 Male: 60.0% FTND: 4.75 Cigs/day: 18.00 Abstinence: 12.8 h ‘overnight’ | N/A (in-session testing only) | None |
Compared to inactive
Craving (single item ‘desire to smoke’) ↓ Negative affect (withdrawal-related; MPSS): irritable ↔, tense ↔, restless ↔ | None |
4. Litvin et al. (2012) | 162 | Experimental: acceptance. Slide show: 10 min Suppression control Slide show: 10 min Inactive control: reading Slide show: 10 min | Age: 36.84 Male: 50.0% FTND: 5.33 Cigs/day: 20.10 Abstinence: 3.0 h | Explicit instructions to continue to use assigned strategy 3 days (69.73%) |
Compared to suppression
Latency to smoke ↔
Post-session
Number of cigarettes ↔
3-day FU
Compared to reading
Latency to smoke ↔ Post-session
Number of cigarettes ↔
3-day FU
|
Compared to suppression
Craving (one-item urge, ME, QSU-4) ↔ In session
Negative affect (MF) ↔ In session
Thoughts about smoking ↑ In session (suppression = reported fewer smoking thoughts)
Compared to reading
Craving (one-item urge, ME) ↓ In session
Craving (QSU-4) ↔ In session
Negative affect (MF) ↓ In session
Thoughts about smoking ↔ In session
| Self-ratings of ‘suppression’ and ‘acceptance’ consistent with assigned strategy |
5. May et al. (2011) | 27 | Active: mindfulness (body scan). Audio instructions: 10 min Inactive: mind wandering. Audio instructions: 10 min (NB: within subjects) | Age: 30.00 Male: 40.74% FTND: N/R Cigs/day: N/R Abstinence: 2.0 h | N/A (in-session testing only) | None |
Compared to mind wandering
Craving (factor 1 of the QSU) ↓ Smoking thought frequency (thought probes) ↓ | None |
6. Nosen and Woody (2013) | 122 | Experimental: mindfulness psycho-education. Slide show: 60–90 min Active control: standard smoking psycho-education. Slide show: 60–90 min Inactive control: no task. Filler questionnaires: 60–90 min | Age: 41.47 Male: 64.77% CDS: 48.55 Cigs/day: 16.49 Abstinence: N/R | No details about use of strategies during the FU period 24 h (89.0%) 4 days (N/R) |
Compared to standard psycho-education
Appraisal of Craving Questionnaire (ACQ)—strength of craving beliefs ↓In-session
Compared to no task
Appraisal of Craving Questionnaire (ACQ)—strength of craving beliefs ↓In-session
|
Compared to standard psycho-education
Craving (single-item VAS and QSU brief) ↔ in the morning; ↓ 24-h FU in the evening (quitters only)
Compared no task
Craving (VAS single item) ↓24-h FU in the morning and evening (quitters only) Craving (QSU brief) ↔ In-session
| None |
7. Rogojanski et al. (2011) | 61 | Experimental: mindfulness (urge surfing). Audio instructions: duration not reported Suppression control: audio instructions: duration not reported | Age: 40.34 Male: 59.00% FTND: 4.57 Cigs/ day: 16.42 Abstinence: 0.8 h | Participants not instructed to use strategy 7 days (80.33%) |
Compared to suppression
Number of cigarettes (TLFB) ↔ 7-day FU
|
Compared to suppression
Craving (VAS) ↔ In session, 7-day FU
Negative affect (PANAS) ↓7-day FU
| Credibility (CEQ) ↔
|
8. Ruscio et al. (2015) | 44 | Experimental: mindfulness. Audio instructions: 20 min Inactive control: sham meditation. Audio instructions: 20 min | Age: 44.75 Male: 47.5% WISDM: 55.72 Cigs/day: 15.93 Abstinence: N/A (instructed to smoke as little or as much as you like during study) | Instructions to continue using assigned strategy (20 min/day) 7 days (72.7%) 14 days (72.7%; linear mixed model analysis) |
Compared to sham meditation
Number of cigarettes ↓14-day FU (NB groups differed in cigarettes/day by 4.15, p = 0.06) |
Compared to sham meditation
Craving (single-item scale) ↔14-day FU
Negative affect (PANAS-NA) ↔14-day FU
| None |
9. Szasz et al. (2012) | 94 | Experimental: acceptance. Written instructions: 72 words Active control: reappraisal. Written instructions: 75 words Suppression control: written instructions: 66 words | Age: 23.02 Male:11.7% FTND: 3.14 Cigs/day: 18.62 Abstinence (mode): 1.88 h | N/A (in-session testing only) | None |
Compared to reappraisal
Craving (QSU brief) ↑
Negative affect (PANAS) ↑
Compared to suppression
Craving (QSU brief) ↔
Negative affect (PANAS) ↔
| ‘Adjusting,’ ‘concealing’ and ‘tolerating’ scores consistent with strategy use |
10. Ussher et al. (2006) | 60 | Experimental: mindfulness (body scan). Audio instructions: 5 min Active control: isometric exercise. Audio instructions: 5 min Inactive control (passive sitting): 5 min | Age: 32.20 Male: 55.0% FTND: 3.92 Cigs/day: 18.83 Abstinence: 17.31 h | N/A (in-session testing only) | None |
Compared to isometric exercise
Craving (single item desire to smoke) ↔
Negative affect (withdrawal-related; MPSS): irritable ↑; tense ↑; restless ↑, stressed ↑, poor concentration ↔; depressed ↔
Compared to passive sitting
Craving (single item desire to smoke) ↔
Negative affect (withdrawal-related; MPSS): irritable ↔; tense ↔; restless ↑; stressed ↔; poor concentration ↔; depressed ↔ | None |
11. Ussher et al. (2009) | 48 | Experimental: mindfulness (body scan). Audio instructions: 10 min Active control: isometric exercise. Audio instructions: 10 min Inactive control: reading control: 10 min | Age: 27.80 Male: 64.6% FTND: 5.00 Cigs/day: 15.5 Abstinence: 16.7 h | N/A (in-session testing only) | None |
Compared to isometric exercise
Craving (single item desire to smoke) ↔
Negative affect withdrawal-related; MPSS: irritable ↔; tense ↔; restless ↔; stressed ↔; poor concentration ↔
Compared to reading
Craving (single item desire to smoke) ↓ Negative affect (withdrawal-related; MPSS): irritable ↓; tense ↔; restless ↓; stressed ↓; poor concentration ↓ | Credibility (CEQ) ↔ Experimental v Active
|
12. Westbrook et al. (2013) | 54 | Experimental: mindfulness/acceptance. Instructions provided by the experimenter: 366 words Inactive control: look naturally. Instructions provided by the experimenter: 31 words (NB: within subjects) | Age: 45 Male: 69% FTND: 5.03 Cigs/day: 17.58 Abstinence: 12 h | N/A (in-session testing only) | None |
Compared to looking neutrally
Craving (single item) ↓ Negative affect (single item) ↓ | None |
Methodological Overview of Studies
Study | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Q12 | Q13 | Q14 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | E | ||||||||||||||
Beadman et al. (2015) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
Bowen and Marlatt (2009) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y |
Cropley et al. (2007) | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N/A | Y | N/A | N | N | N | Y |
Litvin et al. (2012) | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
May et al. (2011) | N | N/A | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | N/A | Y | N/A | N | N | Y | Y |
Nosen and Woody (2013) | N | Y | – | – | – | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N/A | Y | N/A | N | Y | Y | Y |
Rogojanski et al. (2011) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N/A | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y |
Ruscio et al. (2016) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y |
Szasz et al. (2012) | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N |
Ussher et al. (2006) | N | Y | N/A | Y | Y | Y | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | N | N | N | Y |
Ussher et al. (2009) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N | N | Y |
Westbrook et al. (2013) | N | N/A | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y |