Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Authors applied adult dose for smoking to adolescents when smoking behaviour is different in the two
EDITOR For unreported reasons, Aveyard et al applied our adult dose for
smoking to an adolescent population. In our standard adult protocol we
provide three expert system interventions over six to 12 months.
Aveyard et al provided three expert system interventions to adolescents
over a comparable period of time. Our behaviour change protocol for
adolescent populations calls for six to eight expert system
interventions over two academic years. One of the reasons our
treatment with adolescents is at least twice as long, with more expert
system interventions, is that smoking increases over a two year period
with adolescents, whereas it decreases with adults. Why would Aveyard
et al expect an adult dose for smoking to be effective with
adolescents? I know of no evidence, and Aveyard et al provide no
evidence or rationale, for applying our adult dose of expert systems to adolescents.
We will soon be reporting on the important pattern of results that were
produced when our two year adolescent protocol was applied to an
adolescent population.
My colleagues and I have read the article by Aveyard
et al on smoking prevention and cessation in schools, which examines the use of computer delivered expert system interventions that we have
developed.1
Cancer Prevention Research Center, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI 02881, USA jop{at}uri.edu
Competing interests: I am one of the developers of the expert system under discussion. The expert systems for smoking are owned by the University of Rhode Island and are licensed to Johnson and Johnson Health Services. A sublicence has been developed with Nelson Communications in the United States and Public Management Associates for commercial use in the United Kingdom. Pro-Change Behavior Systems, LLC, of which I am a principal, provides research and development services to these two companies.
| 1. |
Aveyard P, Cheng KK, Almond J, Sherratt E, Lancashire R, Lawrence T, et al.
Cluster randomised controlled trial of expert system based on the transtheoretical ("stages of change") model for smoking prevention and cessation in schools.
BMJ
1999;
319:
948-953 |
Authors' reply
EDITOR Prochaska advances the argument that because the prevalence of smoking
in the group of adolescents is changing rapidly the individuals in that
group are less susceptible to change by the intervention and need more
sessions to achieve the effect that adults would achieve with fewer
sessions. This does not follow. Our data show that 37% of adolescents
who smoked regularly were preparing to stop smoking, compared with the
20% that is typical in adult populations.3 Such
individuals are more likely to have quit at one year than individuals
in earlier stages of change.4 This reflects itself in the
high quit rates achieved by both intervention and control groups (more
than 25% at one year). On this basis, it seems more likely that the
expert system for adolescents, the only one that can be compared with
the system for adults, should be more successful and require fewer
sessions, yet we found no effect.
A better explanation for the failure of the intervention is one
advanced by Reid.5 Teenage smokers have a variety of
smoking histories and do not construe their behaviour in the same
way that questionnaires do. Perhaps the concept of being a regular smoker is foreign to most young teenage smokers, as is the idea of
needing to go through a process to stop smoking, so the expert system's messages were lost on them.
Prochaska implies that there is a well known adult dose and an
adolescent dose of the expert system. The only evidence on how many
doses of the expert system should be used is from a trial in adults,
and that evidence suggests that one is enough.1 Prochaska
and colleagues' only other published study on the transtheoretical model expert system in adolescents used three sessions.2
There is no evidence on which to base a decision about how many
sessions adolescents might need.
p.n.aveyard{at}bham.ac.uk
K K Cheng
Terry Lawrence
Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of
Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT
1.
Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Fava JL, Laforge RG, Rossi JS.
Interactive versus noninteractive interventions and dose-response relationships for stage-matched smoking cessation programs in a managed care setting.
Health Psychol
1999;
18:
21-28[CrossRef][Medline].
2.
Pallonen UE, Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS, Bellis JM, Tsoh JY, et al.
Computer-based smoking cessation interventions in adolescents: description, feasibility, and six-month follow-up findings.
Subst Use Misuse
1998;
33:
935-965[Medline].
3.
Velicer WF, Fava JL, Prochaska JO, Abrams DB, Emmons KM, Pierce JP.
Distribution of smokers by stage in three representative samples.
Prev Med
1995;
24:
401-411[CrossRef][Medline].
4.
Diclemente CC, Prochaska JO, Fairhurst SK, Velicer WF, Velasquez MM, Rossi JS.
The process of smoking cessation: an analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change.
J Consult Clin Psychol
1991;
59:
295-304[CrossRef][Medline].
5.
Reid D.
Failure of an intervention to stop teenagers smoking.
BMJ
1999;
319:
934-935
© BMJ 2000
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.