4.4 Article

Assessment of successful smoking cessation by psychological factors using the Bayesian network approach

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY HEALTH & MEDICINE
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 652-661

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2015.1073337

Keywords

Smoking cessation; general self-efficacy; trait coping style; self-rating anxiety; psychological factor; Bayesian network

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81273150]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The association between psychological factors and smoking cessation is complicated and inconsistent in published researches, and the joint effect of psychological factors on smoking cessation is unclear. This study explored how psychological factors jointly affect the success of smoking cessation using a Bayesian network approach. A community-based case control study was designed with 642 adult male successful smoking quitters as the cases, and 700 adult male failed smoking quitters as the controls. General self-efficacy (GSE), trait coping style (positive-trait coping style (PTCS) and negative-trait coping style (NTCS)) and self-rating anxiety (SA) were evaluated by GSE Scale, Trait Coping Style Questionnaire and SA Scale, respectively. Bayesian network was applied to evaluate the relationship between psychological factors and successful smoking cessation. The local conditional probability table of smoking cessation indicated that different joint conditions of psychological factors led to different outcomes for smoking cessation. Among smokers with high PTCS, high NTCS and low SA, only 36.40% successfully quitted smoking. However, among smokers with low pack-years of smoking, high GSE, high PTCS and high SA, 63.64% successfully quitted smoking. Our study indicates psychological factors jointly influence smoking cessation outcome. According to different joint situations, different solutions should be developed to control tobacco in practical intervention.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available