Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Smok Cessat. 2018 Jan 21;13(4):216–226. doi: 10.1017/jsc.2017.26

Motivational Benefits of Social Support and Behavioural Interventions for Smoking Cessation

Julia N Soulakova 1, Chiung-Ya Tang 1, Selena A Leonardo 1, Lindsay A Taliaferro 2
PMCID: PMC6459678  NIHMSID: NIHMS932205  PMID: 30984294

Abstract

This study examined the role of social support and behavioral interventions used during the last unsuccessful quit attempt for smokers’ intentions to quit smoking within the next 6 months, and identified smokers’ attributes associated with use of social support and behavioral interventions. The analytic sample included 7,195 adult daily smokers who responded to the 2010–2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, conducted in the US, and indicated having a serious quit attempt in the past 12 months. Smokers who relied on social support from friends and family had higher odds of intending to quit than those who did not (OR= 1.39, 95% CI= 1.22:1.58), and smokers who used interventions had higher odds of intending to quit than those who did not (OR= 1.36, 95% CI= 1.07:1.74). These associations were similar for both sexes, all age groups, and nicotine dependence levels. Both, relying on social support and use of behavioral interventions were more common among smokers who were female, higher educated, residing in the Western US region, and those who used pharmacological aids for smoking cessation. Social support and behavioral interventions are associated with higher intentions to quit among attempters who relapsed and thus, may aid future smoking cessation.

Keywords: Cessation process, Cessation methods, Survey sampling, Support system

Benefits of Social Support and Behavioral Interventions

Social support plays a critical role in one’s psychological and physical well-being. For example, interpersonal relationships can help an individual deal with stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Villain, Sibon, Renou, Poli, & Swendsen, 2017), motivate behavioral changes, and help maintain new behaviors (Crookes et al., 2016; House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Sarkar, Taylor, Lai, Shegog, & Paxton, 2016; Villain et al., 2017). Specifically, having a supportive environment could help a smoker quit smoking and prevent smoking relapse (Creswell, Cheng, & Levine, 2015; Patten et al., 2016; Sorensen, Emmons, Stoddard, Linnan, & Avrunin, 2002). For example, daily smokers expecting to receive social support if they quit smoking report stronger intentions to quit smoking (Meijer, Gebhardt, Laar, Kawous, & Beijk, 2016).

Because of the benefits that social support offers, smokers participating in behavioral interventions for smoking cessation are commonly advised to seek social support from friends and family outside of the program (Baker et al., 2011; Carlson, Goodey, Bennett, Taenzer, & Koopmans, 2002; Kviz, Crittenden, Clark, Madura, & Warnecke, 1994; Meijer et al., 2016; Murray, Johnston, Dolce, Lee, & O’Hara, 1995). These interventions aim to help smokers quit and prevent smoking relapse by providing recommendations for how to cope with psychosocial and/or physical difficulties associated with quitting smoking such as nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

Study Goals

Supportive social environments for smoking cessation and evidence-based behavioral interventions for smoking cessation share similar features. In addition, disintegration of individual effects is problematic for those smokers who relied on social support as a part of an intervention or in addition to the intervention. Therefore, the impact of supportive social environments and interventions on quitting behaviors should be assessed simultaneously. We hypothesize that relying on social support and/or using behavioral interventions, even during a failed quit attempt, will help motivate smokers to improve their intentions to quit in the near future.

The overall goal of the study was to assess whether social support and behavioral interventions used during the last serious (unsuccessful) quit attempt were positively associated with smokers’ intentions to quit in the near future. The specific research goals were:

  • Goal 1: Identify smokers’ characteristics associated with relying on social support and behavioral interventions while trying to quit smoking.

  • Goal 2: Identify specific behavioral interventions associated with intentions to quit smoking.

  • Goal 3: Identify whether relying on support and/or using behavioral interventions during the last serious quit attempt are positively associated with smokers’ intentions to quit in the near future, and whether these associations differ across diverse groups of smokers with regards to age, sex, and/or nicotine dependence.

Study Behavioral Interventions

While evidence suggests that behavioral interventions are effective means for smoking cessation (Bully, Sánchez, Zabaleta-Del-Olmo, Pombo, & Grandes, 2015; Fiore et al., 2008), smokers attempting to quit do not often use behavioral interventions: less than 10% of attempters use these methods (Cokkinides, Ward, Jemal, & Thun, 2005; Fiore et al., 1990; Shiffman, Brockwell, Pillitteri, & Gitchell, 2008a, 2008b; Soulakova & Crockett, 2016; Soulakova & Crockett, 2016). In this study we consider the most common behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, which include (1) telephone help-lines or quit-lines, (2) one-on-one counseling, (3) stop smoking clinics, class or support groups, and (4) internet or web-based programs. All four types of interventions are considered evidence-based and cost-effective (Bernstein, Weiss, Toll, & Zbikowski, 2016; Cummins et al., 2007; Fiore et al., 2008; Hollis et al., 2007; Lancaster & Fowler, 2000; Lancaster & Stead, 2005; Lancaster, Stead, Silagy, & Sowden, 2000b; Schlam et al., 2016). The recommended guidelines for delivery these interventions have been developed and summarized elsewhere (Fiore et al., 2008; Fiore, Bailey, & Cohen, 2000).

Factors Associated with Intentions to Quit

Several studies examined factors influencing smokers’ quit intentions (Fagan & Augustson, 2007; Feng et al., 2010; Franco, Welsby, Eccleston, & Furber, 2011; Mathur & Singh, 2015; Sorensen et al., 2002). For example, for all or almost all examined racial/ethnic groups, longer quit attempts, daily smoking, and receiving advice to quit from a doctor were associated with higher odds of intending to quit (Soulakova, Li, & Crockett, 2017). Because smokers’ intentions may predict quitting smoking (Sorensen et al., 2002; Tsoh et al., 2015), these findings concerning smokers’ intentions are important. However, whether relying on social support and using behavioral interventions for smoking cessation during an unsuccessful quit attempt help improve smokers’ intentions to quit remains unknown.

Method

Data and Measures

Data Set

The data came from the Tobacco Use Supplement (TUS) survey, one of the largest and commonly used data source for assessing smoking prevalence and smoking-related behaviors in the US. Since 1992, the TUS has been administered every 3 to 4 years as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS) (US Department of Commerce Census Bureau, 2016). The 2010–2011 TUS-CPS sample is comprised of three monthly samples (May 2010, August 2010, and January 2011). The response rates for self-respondents were about 62% in May and August 2010, and 60% in January 2011. The CPS uses a multi-stage design to assure that each monthly sample is representative of the civilian, non-institutionalized US adult population (aged 18 or older) (US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2016). The data represent all 50 US States and the District of Columbia. The states are grouped by region, as is illustrated in Appendix 1. The monthly data, and the main and replicate weights are available for public use. The six data files (3 monthly data sets and 3 files with weights) should be downloaded, rescaled, and merged into a single data file, and then used in the analyses as described elsewhere (US Department of Commerce. US Census Bureau., 2012).

The analytic sample consisted of 7,195 reports of current daily smokers. Approximately 56% of respondents were surveyed by phone, and 44% were surveyed in-person. Table 1 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.

Table 1.

Sample Description: Smokers’ Sociodemographic Characteristics

Characteristic Count Percentage
Age
 18–24 712 15.2
 25–44 2976 40.5
 45–64 2929 37.7
 65+ 578 6.5
Sex
 Male 3328 51.1
 Female 3867 48.9
Race/Ethnicity
 non-Hispanic White 6068 80.2
 non-Hispanic Black 702 11.9
 Hispanic 425 7.9
Education level
 Lower-educated (High School or below) 4049 57.1
 Higher-educated (some college or above) 3146 42.9
Region
 Northeast 1500 17.3
 Midwest 2102 28.1
 South 2287 38.1
 West 1306 16.5
Metropolitan Status
 Metropolitan Area 5258 80.0
 non-Metropolitan Area 1937 20.0
Open in a new tab

Note. Percentages are based on the population counts. The population count is 9,414,928. The sample size is 7,195.

Measures

The primary measure was smoker’s intention to quit smoking within the next 6 months. This measure was defined using yes/no responses to the survey question: “Are you seriously considering quitting smoking within the next 6 months?” The moderating factors, relying on social support from friends and family, and using behavioral interventions, were defined using yes/no responses to the survey questions formulated similarly to the question “Thinking back to the last time you tried to quit smoking in the past 12 months, did you use any of the following: Help or support from friends or family?” Four surveyed behavioral interventions included a telephone help-line or quit-line; one-on-one counseling; a stop smoking clinic, class, or support group; and an internet or web based program. Using behavioral interventions differentiated between smokers indicating using at least one of these interventions and smokers indicating using none of these interventions.

Additional (independent) measures involved the following ones. The nicotine dependence measures included (1) night-smoking (i.e., waking up at night to smoke; yes, no), (2) smoking within 30 minutes from awakening (yes, no), (3) heavy smoking status, where heavy smoking corresponds to smoking 16 or more cigarettes per day, on average, and non-heavy smoking corresponds to smoking 15 or less cigarettes per day, on average, and (4) smoking status 12 months ago (daily smoker, someday smoker, not a smoker). Validity of these and other measures for nicotine dependence has been previously reported (Frost-Pineda, Muhammad-Kah, Rimmer, & Liang, 2014). Characteristics of the last (serious) quit attempt included using pharmacological aids for smoking cessation and duration of the quit attempt. Using pharmacological aids was defined to differentiate among smokers who used at least one pharmacological aid, and those who did not use any aids among the aids assessed: a nicotine patch; a nicotine gum or nicotine lozenge; a nicotine nasal spray or nicotine inhaler; and medications such as Chantix® or Varenicline; Zyban®, Bupropion, or Wellbutrin®; and another prescription medication.

Duration of the last (serious) quit attempt measure differentiated among attempts that lasted less than one day, attempts that lasted from 1 to 7 days, and attempts of 8 days or longer. This measure was based on responses to the following survey questions. First, a respondent was asked: “During the past 12 months, have you stopped smoking for one day or longer because you were trying to quit smoking?”. If the respondent answered “No,” then he/she was asked: “During the past 12 months, have you made a serious attempt to stop smoking because you were trying to quit even if you stopped for less than a day?”. If a respondent answered “Yes” to the former question regarding smoking cessation for at least one day during the past 12 months, he/she was asked: “The last time you stopped smoking during the past 12 months because you were trying to quit, how long did you stop for?” Table 2 presents summary statistics for the social support measure, behavioral interventions measure, nicotine dependence measures, and characteristics of the last quit attempt.

Table 2.

Sample Description: Social Support, Behavioral Interventions, Nicotine Dependence and Characteristics of the Last Quit Attempt

Characteristics Count Percentage
Relying on support from friends and family 2370 32.4
Using behavioral interventions 610 7.4
 Telephone help-line or quit-line 312 3.4
 One-on-one counseling 215 2.7
 Stop smoking clinic, class, or support group 175 2.3
 Internet or web-based program 150 2.0
Nicotine dependence
 Night-smoking 989 13.8
 Smoking within 30 minutes from awakening 3931 53.6
 Heavy smoking (16+ cigarettes per day) 2647 35.6
 Smoking status 12 months ago
  Daily Smoker 6312 87.4
  Occasional Smoker 514 7.4
  Nonsmoker 369 5.2
Characteristics of the last quit attempt
 Duration of the last quit attempt
  Less than 1 day 981 13.3
  1–7 days 3938 54.3
  8+ days 2276 32.3
 Using pharmacological aids 2798 36.0
Open in a new tab

Note. Percentages are based on the population counts. The total population count is 9,414,928 and the total sample size is 7,195.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses adjusted for the CPS design characteristics outlined in the Technical Documentation (US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2016). Specifically, variance of all estimates was computed via balanced repeated replications with Fay correction of 0.5. Analyses were performed using SAS®9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., 2014).

The initial analyses for assessing all three goals were based on the Rao-Scott chi-square tests (Rao & Scott, 1981) for contingency tables, where each test was performed at the 5% significance level. In addition, to assess goal 3, a multiple logistic regression was built to model logit of intending to quit within the next 6 months (reference level was “not intending to quit within the next 6 months”). The main effects included using behavioral interventions, social support, all sociodemographic characteristics depicted in Table 1, i.e., age, sex, race/ethnicity, education status, US region, and metropolitan status of residency, as well as survey mode (phone, in-person), nicotine dependence measures, and characteristics of the last quit attempt depicted in Table 2. The study explored significance of two-way interaction terms between using behavioral interventions and age, sex, and four nicotine dependence measures, and between social support and age, sex, and the nicotine dependence measures. Our initial model contained all main effects and all two-way interactions. Then in each step, all two-way interactions with p-values exceeding 0.050 were examined, the interaction with the largest p-value was excluded, and the model was refitted. Because all interactions were insignificant and were removed from the model, the final model (Likelihood Ratio=336,922, df=22, p<0.001) contained only the main effects. We report the model-based odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on the final model.

When performing post-hoc comparisons, we used Bonferroni corrections to adjust for multiplicity, and reported the adjusted p-values and simultaneous confidence intervals. For example, if smokers’ age was significantly associated with the use of interventions at the 5% level, then differences in the rates of use of interventions between 18–24, 25–44, and 44–45 year-old smokers relative to 65+ year-old smokers were assessed. The three latter tests for the relative differences were performed at 1.67% significance level each.

Results

Research Goal 1: Smokers’ Characteristics Associated with Relying on Social Support and Behavioral Interventions while Trying to Quit Smoking

Using behavioral interventions was positively associated with relying on social support from friends and family (p<0.001). Among smokers who used behavioral interventions while trying to quit smoking, 61.6% relied on support from friends and family, while among smokers who did not use behavioral interventions, only 30.1% relied on support from friends and family.

Table 3 presents the factors significantly associated with relying on social support and using behavioral interventions. Post-hoc comparisons between different age groups, relative to the 65+ year-old group, indicated that 18–24 year-old smokers more commonly relied on social support than did 65+ year-old smokers (adjusted p= 0.039, raw p= 0.013). The other comparisons were not significant. Post-hoc comparisons of non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic smokers, relative to the non-Hispanic White smokers, indicated that non-Hispanic Black smokers less commonly relied on social support than did non-Hispanic White smokers (adjusted and raw p’s<0.001), while Hispanic and non-Hispanic White smokers were similar in terms of the rates of relying on social support. Comparisons of different US regions of residency to the Western region indicated that the prevalence of relying on social support was significantly lower for smokers residing in the Midwestern (adjusted p= 0.033, raw p= 0.011) and Southern (adjusted and raw p’s< 0.001) regions than it was for smokers residing in the Western region. There was no significant difference between the Northeastern and Western regions.

Table 3.

Prevalence of Relying on Support from Friends and Family and Using Behavioral Interventions During the Last Quit Attempt

Characteristic Relying on Social Support Using Behavioral Intervention
Percentage P-Value Percentage P-Value
Age P= 0.036 P< 0.001
 18–24 36.5% 5.0%
 25–44 32.6% 6.4%
 45–64 31.2% 9.6%
 65+ 28.4% 6.2%
Sex P= 0.006 P= 0.003
 Women 34.2% 8.3%
 Men 30.7% 6.5%
Race/ethnicity P< 0.001 NS
 non-Hispanic White 34.3% 7.5%
 non-Hispanic Black 21.1% 7.1%
 Hispanic 29.8% 6.4%
Education level P< 0.001 P< 0.001
 Lower-educated (high school or below) 29.6% 6.0%
 Higher-educated (some college or above) 36.1% 9.2%
Region P= 0.003 P< 0.001
 Northeast 32.3% 8.0%
 Midwest 32.4% 6.2%
 South 30.1% 6.7%
 West 37.8% 10.5%
Smoking within 30 minutes after awakening NS P= 0.004
 Yes 32.4% 8.3%
 No 32.4% 6.4%
Duration of the last quit attempt NS P= 0.007
 Less than 1 day 30.0% 7.9%
 Between 1 and 7 days 32.2% 6.4%
 8 or more days 33.7% 8.8%
Using pharmacological aids P< 0.001 P< 0.001
 Yes 42.1% 14.9%
 No 27.0% 3.2%
Open in a new tab

Note. Percentages are based on the population counts. The total population count is 9,414,928. The p-values are shown for significant associations; significant results are bolded. NS stands for non-significant.

Table 3 also illustrates that prevalence of using behavioral interventions was higher for female smokers, higher-educated smokers, smokers who used pharmacological aids during the last quit attempt, and smokers who smoked within 30 minutes after awakening. There were no significant associations for the other nicotine dependence measures; the corresponding results are not presented. Post-hoc comparisons among the three groups of duration of the last quit attempt indicated only one significant difference. The prevalence of using behavioral interventions was significantly higher for attempts lasting 8 days or longer than attempts lasting 1 to 7 days (adjusted p=0.006, raw p= 0.002). Comparisons of different age groups to 65+ year-old group of smokers indicated only one significant difference: 45–64 year-old smokers more commonly used behavioral interventions than did 65+ year-old smokers (adjusted p=0.042, raw p=0.014). Comparisons of different US regions of residency to the Western region indicated only one significant difference. Smokers residing in the Midwest less commonly used interventions than did smokers residing in the West (adjusted p<0.001, raw p<0.001).

Research Goal 2: Specific Behavioral Interventions and Smokers’ Intentions to Quit

Among the four behavioral interventions considered in the study, telephone help/quit line was the most commonly used (3.4%), followed by one-on-one counseling (2.7%), stop smoking clinic, class or support group (2.3%), and internet or web-based program (2.0%). Figure 1 presents the proportions of smokers intending to quit smoking within the next 6 months with respect to each surveyed behavioral intervention. As Figure 1 depicts, using an intervention was significantly associated with the higher proportion of smokers intending to quit for all interventions. For example, among smokers who used a phone help-line during the last serious quit attempt, 71.8% reported intending to quit, while among those who did not use a phone help-line, only 64.6% reported intending to quit. Similar patterns were found for using one-on-one counseling; a stop smoking clinic, class, or support group; and a(n) internet or web-based program.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Proportions of smokers (%) intending to quit among smokers who used and did not use surveyed behavioral interventions.

Research Goal 3: Social Support and Behavioral Interventions as Predictors for Smokers’ Intentions to Quit

Relying on social support from friends and family was positively associated with intentions to quit smoking within the next 6 months (p<0.001). Among smokers who relied on social support while trying to quit smoking, 70.7% intended to quit, while among those who did not rely on social support, only 62.0% intended to quit. Using behavioral interventions was also positively associated with intentions to quit smoking within the next 6 months (p<0.001). Among smokers who used at least one behavioral intervention during the last quit attempt, 74.4% intended to quit, while only 64.0% of smokers who did not use behavioral interventions intended to quit.

A lack of significant interactions suggested that the relationships between relying on social support and smokers’ intentions to quit, and between using behavioral interventions and smokers’ intentions to quit, were similar across smokers’ age groups, sex groups, and levels of nicotine dependence (all four nicotine dependence measures). Table 4 depicts results for all significant factors. Specifically, relying on support from friends and family and use of behavioral interventions during the last quit attempt were each positively associated with intentions to quit smoking within the next 6 months (both odds ratios were about 1.4, see Table 4).

Table 4.

Model-based Estimates for Significant Factors

Factor Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval
Relying on support from friends and family: Yes versus No (p<0.001) 1.39 (1.22 : 1.58)
Using behavioral interventions: Yes versus No (p=0.014) 1.36 (1.07 : 1.74)
Age (p=0.007)
 18–24 years old versus 65+ years old 1.01 (0.77 : 1.33)
 25–44 years old versus 65+ years old 1.31 (1.06 : 1.63)
 45–64 years old versus 65+ years old 1.30 (1.06 : 1.59)
Sex (p<0.001)
 Women versus men 0.79 (0.70 : 0.90)
Race/ethnicity (P=0.037)
 non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White 1.31 (1.06 : 1.61)
 Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White 1.07 (0.84 : 1.37)
Education (p=0.005): Lower-versus higher-educated 0.84 (0.74 : 0.95)
Region (p=0.012)
 Midwest versus West 0.79 (0.66 : 0.96)
 Northeast versus West 0.75 (0.61 : 0.92)
 South versus West 0.73 (0.60 : 0.89)
Heavy smoking (p<0.001): Light versus heavy smoker (16+ cig/day) 1.40 (1.21 : 1.62)
Smoking status 12 months ago (p=0.003)
 Daily smoker versus nonsmoker 0.88 (0.63 : 1.22)
 Occasional smoker versus nonsmoker 1.31 (0.82 : 2.09)
Using pharmacological aids: Yes versus No (p=0.001) 1.26 (1.09 : 1.44)
Survey mode: phone versus in-person (p=0.007) 1.20 (1.05 : 1.36)
Open in a new tab

In addition, heavy smoking was negatively associated with intentions to quit: light smokers had higher odds of intending to quit than heavy smokers (see Table 4). Prior smoking status was also associated with intentions to quit: smokers who were daily smokers 12 months ago had lower odds of intending to quit than those who were occasional smokers 12 months ago (OR= 0.67, adjusted p=0.002, 98.3% CI= 0.49:0.92); this was the only significant difference. Table 4 depicts results corresponding to the other significant factors. The specific differences in the rates of smokers intending to quit within the next 6 months associated with smokers’ sociodemographic factors have been addressed elsewhere (e.g., Haug et al., 2010; Mathur, 2015; Soulakova, Li, & Crockett, 2017) and are not further discussed.

Discussion

The study’s major findings are as follows:

  • Social support and behavioral interventions were positively associated with smokers’ intentions to quit smoking (even after controlling for other factors influencing smokers’ intentions such as nicotine dependence, use of pharmacological methods for smoking cessation, and sociodemographic characteristics).

  • The above associations were similar across smokers’ age groups, sex groups, and diverse levels of nicotine dependence.

  • The odds of intending to quit were 39% higher for smokers who relied on social support than those who did not and 36% higher for smokers who used interventions than those who did not. Thus, improvements in smokers’ intentions associated with use of support from friends and family and improvements based on use of behavioral interventions were comparable, possibly indicating that receiving social support from friends and family may be as important for promoting quitting as using behavioral interventions.

  • Relying on social support from friends and family was more common among smokers who used behavioral interventions than those who did not, probably because intervention participants are encouraged to procure different types of support, including support from friends and family, to facilitate cessation (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1999).

The positive associations between use of social support or behavioral interventions and smokers’ intentions to quit smoking observed in this study are consistent with results from prior studies illustrating positive benefits of a supportive environment for motivating smokers to quit (Patten et al., 2016; Rayens, Hahn, & Hedgecock, 2008; Sorensen et al., 2002). The social environment can influence smokers’ intentions to quit and quitting behaviors through different mechanisms. For example, support persons could help smokers recognize the importance of quitting, encourage smokers to take responsibility for their actions and behaviors, promote more advantageous substitutions for unhealthy behaviors, and support smokers during relapses and setbacks (Bandura, 2004; Patten et al., 2016; Rayens et al., 2008).

Social support and behavioral interventions were more commonly used by females than males, higher-than lower-educated smokers, and smokers who used pharmacological aids during the quit attempt than those who did not use the aids. Relying on social support also was more common among non-Hispanic White than non-Hispanic Black smokers. Additionally, among the four considered age groups (18–24, 25–44, 45–64 and 65+), smokers aged 65+ had the lowest rate of relying on social support and the second lowest rate of using behavioral interventions. These results are consistent with research based on the 1996 California Tobacco Survey data, which indicated a decreasing pattern in the rates of using self-help material with age – the rates decreased from 6% for 18–24 year-old attempters to 2% for 65+ year-old attempters (Zhu, Melcer, Sun, Rosbrook, & Pierce, 2000). One plausible explanation for observing these patterns is that social isolation, such as non-participation in community activities and having a small social network, is more common among older smokers, probably due to lack of financial resources, adverse health conditions, and mobility limitations associated with aging. Lower prevalence of relying on social support and use of behavioral interventions among elderly (65+ year-old) smokers is consistent with findings that social isolation and perceived social disengagement affect health outcomes among the elderly (Barth, Schneider, & von Känel, 2010; Bassuk et al., 1999; Cornwell & Waite, 2009; Steptoe, Shankar, Demakakos, & Wardle, 2013).

The study also detected some discrepancies in the prevalence of relying on support and using interventions associated with the US region of residency. Specifically, smokers residing in the West reported the highest prevalence of relying on social support (38% in comparison to 30%–32%) and using behavioral interventions (11% in comparison to 6%–8%). These results could suggest the existence of stronger social support environments for smoking cessation and/or better implementation of smoking cessation programs in the Western US region than in other US regions. However, this claim is in need of a more detailed evaluation.

Based on this study, and prior research cited above, we can make the following recommendations.

For tobacco control researchers, policymakers, and clinicians:

  • Develop interventions with a social support component tailored to populations who underuse social support while trying to quit smoking, e.g., men, lower-educated smokers, racial/ethnic minorities, smokers residing in the Southern US region.

  • Encourage all smokers to rely on social support from friends and family during quit attempts.

For smokers who want to quit:

  • Learn about the harmful impact of smoking and health benefits of quitting.

  • Take responsibility for your own actions and behaviors.

  • Identify and use more advantageous substitutions for smoking, e.g., walking with a partner.

  • Do not become discouraged if a relapse occurs.

For support persons:

  • Help smokers recognize the harmful impact of smoking and health benefits of quitting.

  • Encourage smokers to take responsibility for their actions and behaviors

  • Hold them accountable for the goals they set for themselves,

  • Promote and support more advantageous substitutions for unhealthy behaviors, e.g., walking with a partner.

  • Provide support to smokers during relapses and setbacks.

This study included several limitations. First, the current study considered only four specific behavioral interventions (i.e., a telephone help-line or quit-line; one-on-one counseling; a stop smoking clinic, class, or support group; and an internet or web-based program) and did not consider other behavioral interventions such as text messaging or smartphone applications (Baskerville et al., 2015; Ubhi, Michie, Kotz, Wong, & West, 2015). This limitation may pose a difficulty for comparing results with those from other studies. Second, our findings indicated that social support from friends and family was more prevalent among those attempters who used behavioral interventions. While we used two different survey items to assess use of social support from friends/family and behavioral interventions, the effects of each factor on intentions cannot be completely disintegrated. Third, those attempters who indicated using behavioral interventions and not relying on support from their friends and family members could have used another form of social support as a part of the intervention, e.g., support from the group members or counselors. The benefits of other types of support were not addressed in this study. Fourth, the social support measure was not validated in prior studies; therefore, one might question accuracy and validity of this measure. A fifth limitation pertains to inclusion of all reported serious quit attempts, including attempts self-identified as serious and lasting less than one day. These attempts could be different from the attempts termed “serious” in other studies, e.g., commonly a serious quit attempt is defined as an attempt lasting one day or longer (Cokkinides et al., 2005; Zhou, Nonnemaker, Sherrill, & Gilsenan, 2009). While the percentage of short attempts in the sample was relatively small (only 13%), exclusion of these attempts from analyses could, potentially, change the study results, e.g., impact of behavioral interventions on smokers’ intentions could become more pronounced than impact of social support. Finally, due to the observational nature of the data, results from the current study should not be used to suggest a causal relationship between smokers’ behaviors during the last (unsuccessful) quit attempt and their intentions to quit smoking.

The findings regarding benefits of support from close friends and family may suggest the capacity of these support persons to understand what their friend/loved one needs and provide what is needed to increase the smoker’s intention to quit (Mak, Ho, & Day, 2013; Patten et al., 2016; Rayens et al., 2008). Additional research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. Future research also should examine the role of social support in treatment utilization (behavioral and pharmacological) and smokers’ intentions to quit, as well as examine more detailed information about the duration and intensity of interventions and social support used and the order in which they were used.

The study results suggest that smokers’ intentions to quit may be different depending on their experiences during their last failed quit attempt. Because intending to quit in the near future has been found to be associated with quit attempts and eventual smoking cessation (Baker et al., 2011; Dhumal et al., 2014; Feng et al., 2010; Mathur & Singh, 2015), motivating smokers to seek and utilize social support and behavioral interventions, while trying to quit smoking, may help increase the rate of successful quit attempts and decrease the prevalence of smoking cessation.

Acknowledgments

FUNDING

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health And Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01MD009718. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for providing us with their constructive comments that helped us improve the paper.

Appendix 1. Composition of the US States and Regions

Northeastern Region Midwestern Region Southern Region Western Region
Connecticut Illinois Alabama Alaska
Maine Indiana Arkansas Arizona
Massachusetts Iowa Delaware California
New Hampshire Kansas District of Columbia Colorado
New Jersey Michigan Florida Hawaii
New York Minnesota Georgia Idaho
Pennsylvania Missouri Kentucky Montana
Rhode Island Nebraska Louisiana Nevada
Vermont North Dakota Maryland New Mexico
Ohio Mississippi Oregon
South Dakota North Carolina Utah
Wisconsin Oklahoma Washington
South Carolina Wyoming
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Open in a new tab

Footnotes

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: None declared.

References

  1. Baker TB, Mermelstein R, Collins LM, Piper ME, Jorenby DE, Smith SS, … Fiore MC. New Methods for Tobacco Dependence Treatment Research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2011;41(2):192–207. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9252-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura A. Health Promotion by Social Cognitive Means. Health Education & Behavior. 2004;31(2):143–164. doi: 10.1177/1090198104263660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barth J, Schneider S, von Känel R. Lack of Social Support in the Etiology and the Prognosis of Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2010;72(3):229–238. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181d01611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baskerville NB, Struik LL, Hammond D, Guindon GE, Norman CD, Whittaker R, … Brown KS. Effect of a mobile phone intervention on quitting smoking in a young adult population of smokers: randomized controlled trial study protocol. JMIR Research Protocols. 2015;4(1):e10. doi: 10.2196/resprot.3823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bassuk SS, Glass TA, Berkman LF, AH, DM, HC, et al. Social Disengagement and Incident Cognitive Decline in Community-Dwelling Elderly Persons. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1999;131(3):165. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-131-3-199908030-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernstein SL, Weiss JM, Toll B, Zbikowski SM. Association Between Utilization of Quitline Services and Probability of Tobacco Abstinence in Low-Income Smokers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2016;71:58–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.08.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bully P, Sánchez Á, Zabaleta-Del-Olmo E, Pombo H, Grandes G. Evidence from interventions based on theoretical models for lifestyle modification (physical activity, diet, alcohol and tobacco use) in primary care settings: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine. 2015;76:576–593. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson LE, Goodey E, Bennett MH, Taenzer P, Koopmans J. The addition of social support to a community-based large-group behavioral smoking cessation intervention: Improved cessation rates and gender differences. Addictive Behaviors. 2002;27(4):547–559. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00192-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 35. MD: Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US); 1999. Chapter 2—Motivation and Intervention. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis. Psychologkal Bulletin Cassel. 1985;98(31) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cokkinides VE, Ward E, Jemal A, Thun MJ. Under-use of smoking-cessation treatments: Results from the National Health Interview Survey, 2000. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2005;28 doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cornwell EY, Waite LJ. Social Disconnectedness, Perceived Isolation, and Health among Older Adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2009;50(1):31–48. doi: 10.1177/002214650905000103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Creswell KG, Cheng Y, Levine MD. 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. 2015;17(5):566–571. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Crookes DM, Shelton RC, Tehranifar P, Aycinena C, Gaffney AO, Koch P, … Greenlee H. Social networks and social support for healthy eating among Latina breast cancer survivors: implications for social and behavioral interventions. J Cancer Surviv. 2016;10:291–301. doi: 10.1007/s11764-015-0475-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cummins SE, Bailey L, Campbell S, Koon-Kirby C, Zhu SH. Tobacco cessation quitlines in North America: a descriptive study. Tobacco Control. 2007;16(Supplement 1):i9–i15. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.020370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dhumal GG, Pednekar MS, Gupta PC, Sansone GC, Quah ACK, Bansal-Travers M, Fong GT. Quit history, intentions to quit, and reasons for considering quitting among tobacco users in India: findings from the Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation India Wave 1 Survey. Indian Journal of Cancer. 2014;51(Suppl 101):S39–45. doi: 10.4103/0019-509X.147467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fagan P, Augustson E. Quit attempts and intention to quit cigarette smoking among young adults in the United States. Journal of Public …. 2007 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.103697. Retrieved from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2006.103697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Feng G, Jiang Y, Li Q, Yong HH, Elton-Marshall T, Yang J, … Fong GT. Individual-level factors associated with intentions to quit smoking among adult smokers in six cities of China: findings from the ITC China Survey. Tobacco Control. 2010;19(Supplement 2):i6–i11. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.037093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fiore M, Bailey W, Cohen S. Treating tobacco use and dependence: clinical practice guideline. Rockville, MD: US: 2000. Retrieved from http://lib.adai.washington.edu/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A//lib.adai.washington.edu/ebpsearch.htm&TN=EBP&QY=Find+AccessNo=50&RF=Full+Display&DF=Full+Display&NP=3&RL=1&DL=0&XC=/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&AC=QBE_QUERY&CS=0. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiore MC, Novotny TE, Pierce JP, Giovino GA, Hatziandreu EJ, Newcomb PA, … Davis RM. Methods used to quit smoking in the United States. Do cessation programs help? JAMA. 1990;263(20):2760–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fiore M, Jaen C, Baker T, Bailey W, Benowitz N, Curry S, … Henderson P. Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  22. Franco L, Welsby D, Eccleston P, Furber S. A Qualitative Study about Smoking Cessation with Clients of Community Service Organisations That Work with Disadvantaged Families. Health Promotion Journal of Australia:: Official Journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals. 2011;22(2):153–155. doi: 10.1071/he11153. Retrieved from https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=404349404698084;res=IELHEA. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Frost-Pineda K, Muhammad-Kah R, Rimmer L, Liang Q. Predictors, Indicators, and Validated Measures of Dependence in Menthol Smokers. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 2014;33(2):94–113. doi: 10.1080/10550887.2014.909696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Haug S, Meyer C, Ulbricht S, Schorr G, Rüge J, Rumpf HJ, John U. Predictors and moderators of outcome in different brief interventions for smoking cessation in general medical practice. Patient Education and Counseling. 2010;78(1):57–64. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hollis JF, McAfee TA, Fellows JL, Zbikowski SM, Stark M, Riedlinger K. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of telephone counselling and the nicotine patch in a state tobacco quitline. Tobacco Control. 2007;16(Supplement 1):i53–i59. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.019794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social Relationships and Health. Science. 1988;241:540–545. doi: 10.1126/science.3399889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kviz FJ, Crittenden KS, Clark MA, Madura KJ, Warnecke RB. Buddy Support Among Older Smokers in a Smoking Cessation Program. Journal of Aging and Health. 1994;6:229–0254. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lancaster T, Fowler G. Training health professionals in smoking cessation. In: Lancaster T, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. In: Lancaster T, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lancaster T, Stead L, Silagy C, Sowden A. Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library - ProQuest. British Medical Journal. 2000 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.355. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777606521?pq-origsite=gscholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Lee M, Miller SM, Wen KY, Hui SA, Roussi P, Hernandez E. Cognitive-behavioral intervention to promote smoking cessation for pregnant and postpartum inner city women. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2015;38(6):932–43. doi: 10.1007/s10865-015-9669-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mak KK, Ho SY, Day JR. A Review of Life-Course Familial and Lifestyle Factors of Smoking Initiation and Cessation. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports. 2013;7(6):457–463. doi: 10.1007/s12170-013-0341-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mathur S. Association of Smoking Cessation and Intentions to Quit: Role of Occupational Status, Health Professional’s Support, and Perceived Risk. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health. 2015 Jan; doi: 10.2427/10910. [DOI]
  34. Mathur S, Singh N. Association of Smoking Cessation and Intentions to Quit: Role of Occupational Status, Health Professional’s Support, and Perceived Risk. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health. 2015;12(1):10910–10918. doi: 10.2427/10910. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Meijer E, Gebhardt WA, Van Laar C, Kawous R, Beijk SCAM. Socioeconomic status in relation to smoking: The role of (expected and desired) social support and quitter identity. Social Science & Medicine. 2016;162:41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Murray RP, Johnston JJ, Dolce JJ, Lee WW, O’Hara P. Social support for smoking cessation and abstinence: The lung health study. Addictive Behaviors. 1995;20(2):159–170. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(99)80001-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Patten CA, Goggin K, Harris KJ, Richter KP, Williams K, Decker PA, … Catley D. Relationship of autonomy social support to quitting motivation in diverse smokers. Addiction Research & Theory. 2016;24(6):477–482. doi: 10.3109/16066359.2016.1170815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rao JNK, Scott AJ. The Analysis of Categorical Data From Complex Sample Surveys: Chi-Squared Tests for Goodness of Fit and Independence in Two-Way Tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1981;76(374):221. doi: 10.2307/2287815. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rayens MK, Hahn EJ, Hedgecock S. Readiness to Quit Smoking in Rural Communities. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2008;29(10):1115–1133. doi: 10.1080/01612840802319860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sarkar S, Taylor WC, Lai D, Shegog R, Paxton RJ. Social support for physical activity: Comparison of family, friends, and coworkers. Work. 2016;55(4):893–899. doi: 10.3233/WOR-162459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT® 9.4 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  42. Schlam TR, Fiore MC, Smith SS, Fraser D, Bolt DM, Collins LM, … Baker TB. Comparative effectiveness of intervention components for producing long-term abstinence from smoking: a factorial screening experiment. Addiction. 2016;111(1):142–155. doi: 10.1111/add.13153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Shiffman S, Brockwell SE, Pillitteri JL, Gitchell JG. Individual differences in adoption of treatment for smoking cessation: Demographic and smoking history characteristics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008a;93(1):121–131. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Shiffman S, Brockwell SE, Pillitteri JL, Gitchell JG. Use of Smoking-Cessation Treatments in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 2008b;34(2):102–111. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sorensen G, Emmons K, Stoddard AM, Linnan L, Avrunin J. Do social influences contribute to occupational differences in quitting smoking and attitudes toward quitting? American Journal of Health Promotion:: AJHP. 2002;16(3):135–41. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-16.3.135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Soulakova J, Crockett L. Unassisted Quitting and Smoking Cessation Methods Used in the US: Analyses of 2010–2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2016 doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw273. Retrieved from http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/10/07/ntr.ntw273.abstract. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Soulakova JN, Crockett LJ. Unassisted Quitting and Smoking Cessation Methods Used in the United States: Analyses of 2010–2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey Data. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2016;242(5):ntw273. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Soulakova JN, Li J, Crockett LJ. Race/ethnicity and intention to quit cigarette smoking. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2017;5:160–165. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.12.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Steptoe A, Shankar A, Demakakos P, Wardle J. Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013;110(15):5797–801. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219686110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tsoh JY, Burke NJ, Gildengorin G, Wong CB, Le K, Nguyen A, … Nguyen TT. A Social Network Family-Focused Intervention to Promote Smoking Cessation in Chinese and Vietnamese American Male Smokers: A Feasibility Study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2015;17(8):1029–1038. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ubhi HK, Michie S, Kotz D, Wong WC, West R. A mobile app to aid smoking cessation: preliminary evaluation of SmokeFree28. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015;17(1):e17. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. US Department of Commerce. US Census Bureau. National Cancer Institute-sponsored Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (2010–11) 2012 https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/tus-cps/. Technical documentation: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/complet.
  53. US Department of Commerce. US Census Bureau. Complete Technical Documentation: The 2014–2015 Series. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  54. Villain M, Sibon I, Renou P, Poli M, Swendsen J. Very early social support following mild stroke is associated with emotional and behavioral outcomes three months later. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2017;31(311):135–141. doi: 10.1177/0269215515623600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhou X, Nonnemaker J, Sherrill B, Gilsenan A. Attempts to quit smoking and relapse: factors associated with success or failure from the ATTEMPT cohort study. Addictive. 2009 doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.11.013. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460308003183. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Zhu S, Melcer T, Sun J, Rosbrook B, Pierce JP. Smoking cessation with and without assistance: a population-based analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2000;18(4):305–11. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00124-0. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10788733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES