1. “Comparing Two web-based Smoking Cessation Programs: Randomized- Controlled Trial” By: McKay et. Al

2.  Authors believe that internet smoking cessation programs have potential to be an innovative and easy to use smoking cessation aid.  Also wanted to test cognitive behavioral program and examine its efficacy.  Recent studies only have short follow-up intervals.  Goal: To determine the effectiveness of an online smoking cessation program as compared with a general health/exercise program adjusted to include smoking.

3.  Two web-based smoking cessation programs  QSN (Quit Smoking Network) – cognitive behavioral strategies  Active Lives – Control exercise group  Measures  Post-program evaluation of smoking at 3 months and 6 months  Questionnaires about Self-Efficacy, Program usability, and support  IV – QSN vs. Active Lives group  DV – Number of times program was acessed / Smoking at three and six months post-program

4.  Contrary to hypothesis, no significant between programs effectiveness at quitting smoking 3 and 6 months after program.  Participants in QSN group did spend more time with the program and rated it higher on usability.  Possible confounds:  limited access (averaging one time a day)  Material could possibly be forgotten easily due to limited access

5.  Potentially replace cognitive therapy with behavioral measures instead.  Cue identification  Researchers suggest finding a way to increase participant engagement  Researchers also experienced a 55% attrition rate at 6 months making follow-ups less accurate.

6. “Concurrent Drinking and Smoking Among College Students” By: Witkiewitz et. al.

7.  Association between drinking and smoking habits among college-aged students  98% of student smokers report alcohol use  Few studies of concurrence of behaviors  More drinks per cigarette smoked and vice- versa  Potential dopaminergic reward system overlap

8.  Purpose: to evaluate potential contextual behavior effects of smoking and drinking  Look for applications to current treatment programs to see if drinking behavior is sufficiently explored in smoking cessation programs

9.  111 college age students asked to keep a 21 day diary of smoking and drinking habits  Had 4-5 drinks in one drinking session in the past month  Replied to text/e-mail surveys three times a day and at participant’s will dependent on behavior

10.  Individuals at parties are 3.57 times more likely to smoke cigarettes; 2.17 times more likely at bar  Even stronger correlations with daily smokers  Increase in both behaviors respectively after engaging in the first  Drinking leads to increased desire to smoke and vice-versa

11.  Also more likely to drink more and smoke more cigarettes if both behaviors are engaged in  Discussion section suggests focus on social cues as a potential cause of relapse for smoking.

12. “Effects of Brief Cognitive Intervention Aimed at Communicating the Negative Reinforcement Explanation for Smoking on Relevant Cognitions and Urges to Smoke” By: McDermott, Marteau, and Hajek

13.  Current model of cessation programs is withdrawal symptom management (Nicotine dependence)  Unchanged levels of smoking in the UK (22%)  Taking smokers already in cessation programs  Randomly select individuals to take an additional cognitive intervention focused on negative reinforcement (smoking to remove anxiety)

14.  IV – Control group vs. Experimental group  Control = video on the health effects of smoking  Experimental = negative reinforcement explanation of smoking  DV – Likert scales on urges to smoke and strength of urges 1 week after smoking

15.  Patients had access to different nicotine addiction medications (potential confound)  No significant difference between groups.  Although the negative reinforcement intervention program was preferred, cognitive intervention did not seem to inhibit urge to smoke.

16.  Potential Confounds  Only consisted of one session with one week in between assessment  Information could have been easily forgotten by participants  Discussion  Patients with higher education levels may benefit more from the cognitive intervention

17.  McDermott, M. S., Marteau, T. M., & Hajek, P. (2011). Effects of a brief cognitive intervention aimed at communicating the negative reinforcement explanation for smoking on relevant cognitions and urges to smoke. Journal Of Smoking Cessation, 6(2), 112-118. doi:10.1375/jsc.6.2.112  McKay, H., Danaher, B. G., Seeley, J. R., Lichtenstein, E., & Gau, J. M. (2008). Comparing two web-based smoking cessation programs: Randomized controlled trial. Journal Of Medical Internet Research, 10(5), 68-81. doi:10.2196

18.  Witkiewitz, K., Desai, S. A., Steckler, G., Jackson, K. M., Bowen, S., Leigh, B. C., & Larimer, M. E. (2012). Concurrent drinking and smoking among college students: An event-level analysis. Psychology Of Addictive Behaviors, 26(3), 649-654. doi:10.1037/a0025363