Abstract
Objective
Receiving positive support during smoking cessation from friends, family, or romantic partners is associated with abstinence. However, people may differ in willingness to provide such support. We aimed to investigate factors associated with comfort providing support among potential support providers.
Methods
We used mixed methods to understand the current smoking status of participants, beliefs about smoking, and comfort with providing support for quitting. Participants (N = 196) were adults in the United States recruited using Prolific in April 2025. All participants knew someone who smoked. They reported comfort with providing support and completed an optional open-ended response about influences on their comfort.
Results
Thematic analysis of written responses revealed five primary themes, including recipients' cessation-related motivation and effort and providers' smoking status. Compared to formerly smoking individuals, both currently smoking individuals (p < .01), and individuals who have never smoked (p < .01) reported less comfort providing support. Participants who reported closer relationships with an individual who smokes were more comfortable providing support (p = .02).
Conclusions
Findings suggest that support providers' and support recipients' smoking behaviors influence comfort providing support. Participants generally felt more comfortable supporting someone with a clear motivation to quit. Among potential support providers, current smokers felt less comfortable providing support, whereas former smokers felt more comfortable.
Keywords: Smoking cessation, Social support, Relationships, Population health, Motivation
Highlights
-
•
Formerly smoking participants reported more comfort with providing support.
-
•
Relationship closeness was positively associated with comfort providing support.
-
•
Smoking behaviors influence comfort with providing support.
-
•
Support providers are comfortable supporting people who convey motivation to quit.
1. Introduction
Cigarette use is the leading preventable cause of disease—including cancer and heart disease—and death in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024). Smoking cessation decreases the risk of developing these health issues (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024). Within five years of smoking cessation; former smokers have a 39.1% lower lung cancer risk compared to current smokers (Tindle et al., 2018). Along with physical health improvements; smoking cessation improves mental health symptoms (Taylor et al., 2014). Yet; in 2022; 11.6% of adults in the United States reported using cigarettes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022). Having supportive romantic partners; friends; and family members increases the likelihood of smoking cessation (Cohen and Lichtenstein, 1990; Coppotelli and Orleans, 1985). Sustained abstinence is positively associated with receiving support (Scholz et al., 2016). In contrast; people who do not rely on support are less likely to quit smoking (Soulakova et al., 2018). Support can be shown in different ways; including being someone to talk to; encouraging cessation; or providing emotional comfort (Creswell et al., 2015) Instrumental (i.e.; practical) and emotional support show similar patterns in predicting change in recipients' smoking (Scholz et al., 2016); suggesting that specific forms of support may not play unique roles in smoking cessation. Support may be particularly important for some populations. For example; over 58% of participants with mental health disorders reported support from friends or family as a key strategy for successful smoking cessation (Dickerson et al., 2011). Given the importance of support for smoking cessation; many interventions were developed to try to increase cessation through support interventions. These interventions have been generally ineffective (Park, 2004). Importantly, in these intervention studies, support did not change in the treatment arms aiming to increase it.
One possible reason for the lack of intervention effectiveness on support is that the interventions were founded without an understanding of when and how people feel comfortable providing support. An intervention that aims to increase support but does not address factors that produce hesitance in support providers may not be effective. Indeed, although support is helpful for smoking cessation, people may not always provide support. Providing support can be a burden on the provider (Gosnell and Gable, 2017). Specific characteristics of support recipients may increase hesitation to provide support. For instance; many participants with relatives who have mental disorders believed smoking benefited their relatives' mental health symptoms; and even more were uncertain whether nicotine replacement therapy is safe for this population (Aschbrenner et al., 2017). These misconceptions about smoking and cessation may exacerbate hesitation to provide support, rendering support interventions that aim to address smoking less effective than they could be.
We aimed to conduct formative research examining characteristics associated with how comfortable individuals are with providing support to someone attempting to quit smoking, with the goal of informing translational efforts oriented at improving support interventions. We utilized a mixed-methods approach that combined a) quantitative examination of support provider characteristics (e.g., smoking status, tobacco views) and b) qualitative examination of participant responses to an open-ended prompt to describe factors that might influence their comfort providing support.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
United States citizens (N = 196) were recruited nationally using the Prolific online research platform in April 2025. Participants were 18 years or older and knew someone who smokes cigarettes. Because we were interested in potential support providers, we excluded an additional four participants who completed the survey and did not know someone who smokes.
2.2. Procedure
Participants completed a survey through Qualtrics. After providing informed consent, they answered questions about their smoking history, smoking and tobacco views, comfort providing support, and relationship with the individual they knew who smokes. Participants received $3.77 USD ($15.60 hourly rate; average completion time = 14.5 min) for participation. The procedures for this study were reviewed and approved by our university's Institutional Review Board.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Demographics
Participants reported basic demographic factors, including their age, sex assigned at birth (male/female), ethnicity (Non-Hispanic/Hispanic), race, and gender.
2.3.2. Smoking history
Participants answered two questions about their smoking behaviors to understand their smoking status. They were asked “Have you ever smoked a cigarette, even one or two puffs?” (Yes/No) and “In the past 30 days, have you smoked a cigarette, even one or two puffs?” (Yes/No). Participants who responded they have never smoked a cigarette were categorized as Never Smoking. Participants who indicated they have smoked in the past 30 days were categorized as Currently Smoking. Participants who had not smoked in the past 30 days but had ever smoked were categorized as Formerly Smoking.
2.3.3. Smoking views
We measured smoking views with single-item questions. Participants indicated whether they think most people disapprove of smoking cigarettes (1 = Definitely not, 2 = Probably not, 3 = Probably yes, 4 = Definitely yes). They described the positivity of their views about tobacco and cigarettes (1 = Very negative, 2 = Negative, 3 = Neither positive nor negative, 4 = Positive, 5 = Very positive), and they indicated how harmful they think nicotine is to a person's health (1 = Not at all harmful, 2 = Slightly harmful, 3 = Somewhat harmful, 4 = Very harmful, 5 = Extremely harmful).
2.3.4. Relationship to smoking individual
Each participant reported their relationship with the individual they know who smokes cigarettes. Answer choices included an immediate family member, an extended family member, my spouse or partner, a friend, a roommate, or a coworker. They were also asked how close their relationship was (1 = Not close at all, 9 = Very close). Answers to this single-item question were used to represent relationship closeness.
2.3.5. Comfort providing support
We used five items to measure comfort providing support (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Each statement began with the phrase, “I would feel comfortable and competent in providing support to a loved one who…”. Statements were completed with the phrases a) has been smoking for quite some time and has not yet considered quitting smoking, b) has been smoking but has set a concrete goal and a date on which they plan to stop smoking, c) is currently smoking if they are already engaged in quitting using the necessary medication and have consulted with their doctor, d) is currently smoking if they have tried to quit in the past and have failed but are still actively trying to stop smoking, and e) is currently smoking at any point or time.” Items were highly correlated (α = 0.92), and we averaged them to create a single variable representing comfort providing support. Each participant was also given an opportunity to provide additional information about their comfort providing support in the open-ended question “Do you have anything to share with us about when you might feel more or less comfortable and competent providing support?” Approximately half the sample (N = 88) provided additional comments. We intentionally left the form of support open to capture participants' natural inclinations to how they would define support.
2.4. Data analysis
2.4.1. Qualitative data analysis
We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis following the six-phase framework described by Braun and Clarke (Braun and Clarke, 2006, Braun and Clarke, 2019). After reviewing each of the participants' responses, we created an initial set of 11 codes and definitions. Five individuals (initials: CN, MH, DL, SNC, MV) individually applied each code to each response. For each response, we identified whether the response contained the code (0 = No, 1 = Yes). We met as a team to compare coding decisions, discuss discrepancies, and iteratively refine code definitions and themes through a consensus-based process to ensure analytic rigor and transparency. We used descriptive analyses to identify the frequency with which each code and subcode was observed.
2.4.2. Quantitative data analysis
We conducted descriptive analyses by calculating means and frequencies. We compared distributions of demographic variables by smoking status using one-way ANOVAs and Chi-Square tests. We conducted one-way ANOVAs to identify associations between smoking status (independent variable) and comfort providing support and tobacco views (dependent variables). Finally, we conducted correlations between comfort providing support (dependent variable), relationship closeness (independent variable), and tobacco views (independent variable). Because we were interested in the total variance each variable shared with comfort providing support and wanted to avoid partialling out unnecessary variance (Lynam et al., 2006), we used simple correlations to examine effects rather than a multiple regression model in which all predictors were entered simultaneously. All quantitative data analyses were conducted using the statistical software SAS®.
3. Results
3.1. Participant characteristics
Participants (see Table 1) included individuals who formerly smoked (N = 81), currently smoke (N = 68), and never smoked (N = 47). Age was related to smoking status with former smokers being older than current smokers and never smokers. The sample was evenly split by sex and no sex differences emerged across smoking status. Participants reported the person they know who smokes is a friend (N = 93), family member (N = 68), romantic partner or spouse (N = 19), or other (e.g., roommate, coworker, unspecified; N = 16).
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of the nationwide sample of adults (N = 196) and by smoking status in April of 2025.
| Total Sample | Currently Smoking | Formerly Smoked | Never Smoked | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 40.84 (13.26) | 39.03 (12.04)a | 43.90 (14.29)b | 38.17 (12.27)a | 0.02 |
| Sex | 0.98 | ||||
| Male | 52.04% | 51.47% | 51.85% | 53.19% | |
| Female | 47.96% | 48.53% | 48.15% | 46.81% | |
| Race | 0.94 | ||||
| White | 72.45% | 69.12% | 75.31% | 72.34% | |
| Black | 21.94% | 25.00% | 19.75% | 21.28% | |
| Additional races | 5.61% | 5.88% | 4.94% | 6.38% | |
| Ethnicity | 0.61 | ||||
| Non-Hispanic | 92.35% | 94.12% | 90.12% | 93.62% | |
| Hispanic | 7.65% | 5.88% | 9.88% | 6.38% | |
| Comfort | 5.71 (1.24) | 5.52 (1.35)a | 6.08 (1.00)b | 5.33 (1.31)a | <0.01 |
| View Society as Disapproving of Smoking | 3.17 (0.80) | 3.06 (0.81)a | 3.31 (0.75)a | 3.09 (0.83)a | 0.12 |
| Positivity of Personal Tobacco Views | 2.15 (0.98) | 2.75 (1.00)a | 1.95 (0.80)b | 1.62 (0.80)c | <0.01 |
| Positivity of Smoking Views | 2.05 (1.01) | 2.65 (1.08)a | 1.84 (0.82)b | 1.53 (0.78)b | <0.01 |
| View Nicotine as Harmful | 3.96 (1.02) | 3.46 (1.08)a | 4.09 (0.96)b | 4.45 (0.69)c | <0.01 |
| Closeness to Recipient | 7.08 (1.85) | 7.66 (1.49)a | 7.28 (1.65)a | 5.89 (2.14)b | <0.01 |
Note. Results come from one-way ANOVAs (age, comfort, smoking views, closeness) and Chi Square tests (sex, race, ethnicity) comparing the means (ANOVAs) or frequencies (Chi Square tests) across Currently Smoking, Formerly Smoked, or Never Smoked participants. The significance of the omnibus test comparing smoking status groups is presented in the rightmost column. Within row, cells with different subscripts represent simple contrasts that differ from each other significantly, p < .05.
3.2. Qualitative findings about comfort providing support
We observed five main themes that characterize factors influencing participants' comfort in offering support. The themes included recipient smoking behavior, relationship factors, health benefits, provider smoking behavior, and facilitators and barriers. Table 2 shows the themes, subcodes, and definitions for each code.
Table 2.
Identified themes, relevant codes, and definitions for each code.
| Theme | Code Name | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Recipient Smoking Behavior | Demonstrated Commitment | Individuals are comfortable offering support when there is concrete evidence that the person is actively taking steps to quit smoking. |
| Quit Readiness | Support offered based on the individual's level of readiness to quit smoking; less comfortable if the individual is not ready or motivated to quit. | |
| Smoking Dependence | Support influenced by the heaviness of recipient smoking. | |
| Relationship Factors | Openness and Ability to Understand Recipient Situation | A willingness to share information when communication with the support recipient could be transparent and facilitates open dialogue with the support provider. |
| Relationship Closeness | Willingness to offer support to individuals who are close to the support giver. | |
| Health Benefits | Health Motivation | Support offered because the support giver understands and values the health benefits of quitting. |
| Provider Smoking Behavior | Shared Experience | Support influenced by personal experiences with quitting or supporting others, drawing on lived experiences to guide assistance. |
| Own Smoking Status | Level of comfort to provide support is based on the support giver's own smoking status. | |
| Facilitators and Barriers | Unconditional Support | Can offer support anytime and to anyone whether they are already trying to quit smoking or not. |
| Knowledge about Cessation | Level of comfort offering support depends on the support giver's perceived knowledge about how to help someone quit. | |
| Do not want/need my support | Individuals less comfortable offering support if the person indicates they do not need or want it (distinct from readiness to quit). |
As Table 3 shows, the frequency of each theme and code varied, with multiple reoccurring themes. The largest percentage of responses mentioned facilitators and barriers to support, with participants identifying knowledge barriers and a facilitator of comfort providing unconditional support. The second most frequent theme was the recipient's smoking behaviors where many responses mentioned the importance of the quitter's willingness and motivation to stop smoking.
Table 3.
Frequency of each theme observed in open-ended responses about factors influencing comfort with support among potential support providers in the United States in April 2025 (N = 88 adults) and code name with examples of each code.
| Theme | Code Name | Percentage | Example Statements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipient Smoking Behavior | 24.51% | ||
| Demonstrated Commitment | 11.65% | “I'll only feel comfortable and competent in providing support once the person(s) have demonstrated that they have already taken steps to fight their addiction. Otherwise, they are on their own. Sorry not sorry.” | |
| Quit Readiness | 17.65% | “I find it very frustrating to continue to support people who talk about quitting often but haven't made measurable progress.” | |
| Smoking Dependence | 0.97% | “I think I would feel less comfortable when it comes to supporting someone who is a heavy smoker, someone who cannot go hours without smoking.” | |
| Relationship Factors | 7.14% | ||
| Knowledge about Recipient's Situation | 6.80% | “I'd feel more comfortable if they were open to help and less comfortable if they were defensive or in denial.” | |
| Relationship Closeness | 7.77% | “I'd feel more comfortable if I had a strong relationship with the person. I would feel uncomfortable otherwise.” | |
| Health Benefits | Health Motivation | 9.71% | “I would be comfortable to support anyone who wants to quit smoking because I am aware of the adverse effects smoking can cause when it goes on unchecked.” |
| Provider Smoking Behavior | 20.39% | ||
| Shared Experience | 8.74% | “I think that given the fact that I have smoked and quit a long time ago, I understand how hard it is to do and the challenges associated with doing so.” | |
| Own Smoking Status | 20.39% | “It's hard for me to be comfortable with supporting someone who's quitting smoking while I'm still smoking myself.” | |
| Facilitators and Barriers | 48.54% | ||
| Unconditional Support | 31.07% | “I am comfortable in providing support to anyone no matter where they are in their journey.” | |
| Knowledge about Cessation | 10.68% | “I'd do my best, but I don't know enough about the science of addiction to be truly 100% comfortable helping someone. I'd do what I can, but I don't think I'd really be the best person for the job.” | |
| Do not want/need my support | 6.80% | “I would feel less confident if they told me they don't want my support” | |
Note. Percentages reflect the percentage of open-ended responses (N = 88) that mentioned each code.
3.3. Associations between smoking status and views about smoking
As Table 1 shows, smoking status was associated with personal tobacco views, personal smoking views, and perceived nicotine harm. Smoking status was also related to closeness to the recipient.
3.4. Associations with comfort providing support
As Table 1 shows, smoking status was associated with comfort providing support. Both currently smoking and never-smoked individuals reported less comfort providing support than individuals who formerly smoked. Among potential support providers, demographic factors were weakly related to comfort providing support. Neither participant race, F(2, 192) = 0.21, p = .81, nor ethnicity, F(1, 193) = 0.03, p = .87, were related to comfort providing support. Participant sex was likewise not related to comfort providing support, F(1, 193) = 0.52, p = .47. Age was also unrelated to comfort providing support (see Table 4), as was the type of relationship with the person who smokes, F(3, 191) = 0.31, p = .82. As Table 4 shows, the only significant correlation to emerge with comfort providing support was with closeness to a person who smokes. Relationship closeness did not interact with type of relationship to predict comfort providing support, F (3, 185) = 1.16, p = .33.
Table 4.
Correlations between comfort providing support, age, and smoking views among potential support providers (N = 196 adults) in the United States in April 2025.
| Measure | Comfort | Societal Disapproval |
Tobacco Views | Smoking Views | Nicotine Harm | Closeness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | −0.03 | 0.09 | −0.16* | −0.13 | 0.15* | −0.02 |
| Comfort Providing Support | −0.01 | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.17* | |
| View Society as Disapproving of Smoking | −0.21** | −0.30** | 0.16* | 0.13 | ||
| Positivity of Personal Tobacco Views | 0.85** | −0.62** | 0.12 | |||
| Positivity of Personal Smoking Views | −0.60** | 0.11 | ||||
| View Nicotine as Harmful | −0.11 |
* p < .05, ** p < .01 Note. Values come from Pearson r correlations and accompanying tests of statistical significance.
4. Discussion
In this mixed-methods study, we explored comfort providing quitting support among potential support providers. Participants frequently mentioned their own smoking status when thinking about their comfort providing support. They also frequently mentioned that motivations and behaviors to quit in the recipient would shape their comfort providing support. Quantitative analyses of predictors of comfort providing support indicated that demographic factors of the support provider were not associated with comfort providing support. However, participants' smoking status was related to comfort providing support. Both individuals who currently smoke and individuals who have never smoked felt less comfortable providing support than individuals who formerly smoked. Support providers were more comfortable when they were closer to support recipients. Across both quantitative and qualitative findings, smoking views were not strongly related to comfort providing support.
Although relationship closeness emerged as a predictor of comfort providing support in the quantitative data, it did not frequently emerge in participants' open-ended responses. One possibility for this finding is that participants may have assumed they would be offering support to someone with whom they felt at least moderate closeness, letting them focus on additional factors. We also found that individuals who had never smoked were less comfortable providing support reported the lowest closeness to the individual they know who smokes. One plausible explanation is that individuals who have never smoked may be more distantly connected to individuals who smoke in their networks, which could correspond with lower comfort offering support. This interpretation is consistent with evidence that non-smokers generally have less smoking exposure within their social networks (Christakis and Fowler, 2008). These findings suggest non-smokers may experience more hesitation serving as supporters in cessation interventions.
Different mechanisms may explain why currently smoking individuals are less comfortable providing support. Here, the qualitative findings were particularly important because the same code referencing own smoking status was used in different ways by current and former smokers, highlighting the role that personal experiences (e.g., perceived hypocrisy, understanding of the situation) play in influencing comfort providing support. For example, some participants suggested they did not feel in a position to offer support because they were smoking themselves. These findings echo the literature that suggests individuals who currently smoke tend to provide less effective support (Yuan et al., 2023). This possibility is consistent with past research that self-efficacy contributes to willingness to provide emotional support (Rossetto et al., 2014). Individuals who smoke have many social network members who also smoke; including family members; friends; and romantic partners (Aschbrenner et al., 2018; Burgess-Hull et al., 2018; Christakis and Fowler, 2008). Currently smoking individuals thus may be the closest confidants and support providers that individuals who smoke have for other goals, thus it is important to consider their potential role in providing support for smoking cessation. Currently smoking individuals do have many benefits to provide in offering support due to their shared understanding of challenges; support interventions might increase self-efficacy for smokers to quit as well or help them see the value of supporting others in quitting despite their ongoing smoking behavior.
Past research has identified that individuals vary in willingness to provide support (vanDellen et al., 2016), whereas we measured participants' comfort providing support. One possibility is that comfort to provide support may be an antecedent to willingness to provide support. An important predictor of comfort we identified in the qualitative interviews is self-efficacy to provide support. By targeting self-efficacy through knowledge interventions, practitioners may be able to intervene earlier in the support process, ultimately increasing comfort, willingness, and tangible support.
The present research utilized a convenience sample of participants who reported knowing an individual who smokes, however, they were not currently being asked to support this person. Moreover, the hypothetical nature of the research may produce a different pattern than in a real situation. Our sample of participants are in the United States, which only allows us to understand smoking beliefs and comfort providing support within the United States. Smoking views and beliefs may vary across the world due to cultural and societal norms. Comfort providing support may look different in different areas of the world, so our results are not generalizable. Support comes in different forms, but we only assessed general support. For instance, someone may provide informational support (e.g. suggest that they get rid of their remaining cigarettes) and emotional support (e.g. provide comfort and compassion). As a result, this limits the conclusions that can be made to inform future support interventions. In general, people are often willing to help others and doing so supports well-being (Flynn and Lake, 2008; Hui et al., 2020). Thus, direct requests for help for a quit attempt may produce support. Importantly, people may help others in these situations despite feeling uncomfortable doing so, a gap in the literature that this project aimed to address. We did not exhaustively consider the many factors that may additionally influence comfort providing support, including whether the support recipient has specific challenges that might influence their need for or benefits from receiving support (e.g., a physical health condition requiring cessation, mental health conditions that might benefit from increased social support). Other unmeasured factors such as personality traits (e.g. Big 5 Personality), education, and socioeconomic status may further contribute to comfort providing support. We did not collect quantitative data regarding participants' prior experience with past quit attempts or history of giving and/or receiving support, which would impact the development of future support interventions. Specifically, people who have had positive or negative experiences providing support may have been more likely to provide unconditional support (if positive experiences) or to provide support conditional on effort or observed changes (if negative experiences).
5. Conclusion
These findings can help shape future support interventions that target how individuals provide support in their everyday lives. For instance, support interventions could be tailored to the support providers' needs (e.g., their smoking status, knowledge to support, relationship closeness). Such tailored support interventions could allow individuals to be more willing to provide support if they have the information that fits their needs. Finally, our findings suggest a target of intervention that involves coaching support providers to respond to the quitter's behavior even when it appears misaligned with quitting. Quitters may not always express motivation to quit and will almost certainly struggle during a quit attempt. If support providers are only willing to support individuals who appear to be motivated and/or actively engaged in quitting, support recipients may not always receive the help they need.
Funding
This work is supported by Institutional Research Grant (#IRG-23-1143225-04) from the American Cancer Society, the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) contract (#00003615), and the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center via an NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA225520). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sydney Newell Chesebro: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Catherine S. Nagawa: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Madeline K. Hardage: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Formal analysis. Frances K. Wen: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition. Michelle R. vanDellen: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Informed consent
All participants provided informed consent prior to study procedures.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
De-identified data and analysis code underlying the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to Institutional Review Board and data-use restrictions.
References
- Aschbrenner K.A., Dixon L.B., Naslund J.A., Bienvenida J.C.M., McManus K.L., Bartels S.J., Brunette M.F. An online survey of family members beliefs and attitudes about smoking and mental illness. J. Dual Diagn. 2017;13(3):179–183. doi: 10.1080/15504263.2017.1326651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aschbrenner K.A., Bobak C., Schneider E.J., Naslund J.A., Brunette M.F., O’Malley A.J. Egocentric social networks and smoking among adults with serious mental illness. Transl. Behav. Med. 2018;8(4):531–539. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibx014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Braun V., Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport, Exerc. Health. 2019;11(4):589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Burgess-Hull A.J., Roberts L.J., Piper M.E., Baker T.B. The social networks of smokers attempting to quit: an empirically derived and validated classification. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2018;32(1):64–75. doi: 10.1037/adb0000336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Current cigarette smoking among adults in the United States; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 2022. August 22. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm. [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Cancer. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Health Effects of Cigarettes: 2024. September 17. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about/cigarettes-and-cancer.html. [Google Scholar]
- Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;358(21):2249–2258. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0706154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cohen S., Lichtenstein E. Partner behaviors that support quitting smoking. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1990;58(3):304–309. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.58.3.304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coppotelli H.C., Orleans C.T. Partner support and other determinants of smoking cessation maintenance among women. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1985;53(4):455–460. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.4.455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Creswell K.G., Cheng Y., Levine M.D. A test of the stress-buffering model of social support in smoking cessation: is the relationship between social support and time to relapse mediated by reduced withdrawal symptoms? Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2015;17(5):566–571. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dickerson F., Bennett M., Dixon L., Burke E., Vaughan C., Delahanty J., DiClemente C. Smoking cessation in persons with serious mental illnesses: the experience of successful quitters. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 2011;34(4):311–316. doi: 10.2975/34.4.2011.311.316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Flynn F.J., Lake V.K.B. If you need help, just ask: underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2008;95(1):128–143. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gosnell C.L., Gable S.L. You deplete me: impacts of providing positive and negative event support on self-control. Pers. Relat. 2017;24(3):598–622. doi: 10.1111/pere.12200. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hui B.P.H., Ng J.C.K., Berzaghi E., Cunningham-Amos L.A., Kogan A. Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychol. Bull. 2020;146(12):1084–1116. doi: 10.1037/bul0000298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lynam D.R., Hoyle R.H., Newman J.P. The perils of partialling: cautionary tales from aggression and psychopathy. Assessment. 2006;13(3):328–341. doi: 10.1177/1073191106290562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Park E.-W. Does enhancing partner support and interaction improve smoking cessation? A Meta-analysis. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2004;2(2):170–174. doi: 10.1370/afm.64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rossetto K., Lannutti P., Smith R. Investigating self-efficacy and emotional challenge as contributors to willingness to provide emotional support. South Commun. J. 2014;79(1):41–58. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2013.854404. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Scholz U., Stadler G., Ochsner S., Rackow P., Hornung R., Knoll N. Examining the relationship between daily changes in support and smoking around a self-set quit date. Health Psychol. 2016;35(5):514–517. doi: 10.1037/hea0000286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Soulakova J.N., Tang C.-Y., Leonardo S.A., Taliaferro L.A. Motivational benefits of social support and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation. J. Smok. Cessat. 2018;13(4):216–226. doi: 10.1017/jsc.2017.26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, G., McNeill, A., Girling, A., Farley, A., Lindson-Hawley, N., & Aveyard, P. (2014). Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 348(feb13 1), g1151–g1151. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Tindle H.A., Stevenson Duncan M., Greevy R.A., Vasan R.S., Kundu S., Massion P.P., Freiberg M.S. Lifetime smoking history and risk of lung cancer: results from the Framingham heart study. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2018 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- vanDellen M.R., Boyd S.M., Ranby K.W., MacKillop J., Lipkus I.M. Willingness to provide support for a quit attempt: a study of partners of smokers. J. Health Psychol. 2016;21(9):1840–1849. doi: 10.1177/1359105314567209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yuan P., Westmaas J.L., Thrul J., Toussaert S., Hilton J.F., White J.S. Effectiveness of peer-support interventions for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2023;25(9):1515–1524. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntad059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
De-identified data and analysis code underlying the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to Institutional Review Board and data-use restrictions.