MRU Smoking Cessation Tobacco Problem & Study Research Poster Presentation

User Generated

Znegun2727

Health Medical

Mount Royal University

Description

We need to fix a Research Poster.

Part a: Research Poster - choose one (1) research study from your Evidence Table in Group Project #1 which you will use to create your group Research Poster. - elements of the research poster should represent the research process. - use the Poster Judging Rubric and additional resources located in the course Moodle Room to guide development of your group Research Poster. - submit Posters

Unformatted Attachment Preview

11 British Journal of Health Psychology (2016), 21, 11–30 © 2015 The Authors. British Journal of Health Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Is the intention–behaviour gap greater amongst the more deprived? A meta-analysis of five studies on physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation Milica Vasiljevic1, Yin-Lam Ng1, Simon J. Griffin1,2, Stephen Sutton1,3 and Theresa M. Marteau1* 1 Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, UK Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, UK 3 Behavioural Science Group, University of Cambridge, UK 2 Objectives. Unhealthy behaviour is more common amongst the deprived, thereby contributing to health inequalities. The evidence that the gap between intention and behaviour is greater amongst the more deprived is limited and inconsistent. We tested this hypothesis using objective and self-report measures of three behaviours, both individual- and area-level indices of socio-economic status, and pooling data from five studies. Design. Secondary data analysis. Methods. Multiple linear regressions and meta-analyses of data on physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation from 2,511 participants. Results. Across five studies, we found no evidence for an interaction between deprivation and intention in predicting objective or self-report measures of behaviour. Using objectively measured behaviour and area-level deprivation, meta-analyses suggested that the gap between self-efficacy and behaviour was greater amongst the more deprived (B = .17 [95% CI = 0.02, 0.31]). Conclusions. We find no compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that the intention–behaviour gap is greater amongst the more deprived. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject?  Unhealthy behaviour is more common in those who are more deprived.  This may reflect a larger gap between intentions and behaviour amongst the more deprived.  The limited evidence to date testing this hypothesis is mixed. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. *Correspondence should be addressed to Theresa M. Marteau, Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK (email: tm388@cam.ac.uk). DOI:10.1111/bjhp.12152 12 Milica Vasiljevic et al. What does this study add?  In the most robust study to date, combining results from five trials, we found no evidence for this explanation.  The gap between intentions and behaviour did not vary with deprivation for the following: diet, physical activity, or medication adherence in smoking cessation.  We did, however, find a larger gap between perceived control over behaviour (self-efficacy) and behaviour in those more deprived.  These findings add to existing evidence to suggest that higher rates of unhealthier behaviour in more deprived groups may be reduced by the following: ○ Strengthening behavioural control mechanisms (such as executive function and non-conscious processes) or ○ Behaviour change interventions that bypass behavioural control mechanisms. Morbidity and mortality are socially patterned: Those who are least deprived, on average, live longer and in better health (Marmot et al., 2010). Whilst life expectancy is increasing, this increase has been greatest amongst the least deprived. One of the explanations for the social patterning of health outcomes is the social patterning of health behaviours, in particular smoking, alcohol consumption, poor diet, and physical inactivity (Laaksonen et al., 2008; Lantz et al., 1998; Lynch, Kaplan, & Salonen, 1997; Martikainen, Brunner, & Marmot, 2003; Stringhini et al., 2010; van Oort, van Lenthe, & Mackenbach, 2005). Given the long-standing interest in the social patterning of health outcomes, the lack of data to inform strategies for reducing health inequalities, particularly through changing healthrelated behaviour, is noteworthy. In addition, there has been a general lack of progress in reducing health inequalities. This is despite a clear policy focus on reducing health inequalities (Department of Health, 1999; Judge, Platt, Costongs, & Jurczak, 2006; Marmot et al., 2010). Thus, there is a need for more innovative research including a focus on the behavioural contribution to health inequalities and the development of interventions that target these directly. Targeting behaviour to reduce health inequalities has been largely eschewed in the mainstream health inequalities literature on the grounds that the social patterning of behaviour reflects structural inequalities and social determinants and so should be changed through the latter routes (e.g., Marmot, 2005). Yet, such a complex problem as health inequalities will require multiple solutions, with no one approach necessarily precluding any others. Social patterning of the intention–behaviour gap Unlike sociological and epidemiological studies, psychological research has for the most part concentrated on health cognitions associated with people’s health behaviours, whilst largely leaving structural inequalities out of the equation. Two aspects of health cognitions most studied by psychologists are intention and self-efficacy as exemplified in several seminal theories: Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1998), protection motivation (Maddux & Rogers, 1983), and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Intentions have been defined as conscious decisions and motivations in the enactment of healthrelated behaviours (cf. Ajzen, 1991), and self-efficacy has been defined as perceived confidence in the ability to perform health-related behaviours (cf. Bandura, 1998). Importantly, many people fail to enact their intentions, thereby producing an intention– behaviour gap (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Moderating effect of SES 13 We are unaware of any reviews on the social patterning of the intention–behaviour gap, or the self-efficacy–behaviour gap. Studies assessing the social patterning of intention to consume a healthier diet find that children and adults from higher socioeconomic groups have greater intentions to eat more healthily which was associated with consuming a healthier diet (Bere, van Lenthe, Klepp, & Brug, 2008; Leganger & Kraft, 2003; Sandvik, Gjestad, Samdal, Brug, & Klepp, 2009). Similar findings were reported for the social patterning of self-efficacy and diet (Ball et al., 2009). However, a study by Godin, Amireault, et al. (2010) did not find any evidence of social patterning of the intention–behaviour gap regarding fruit and vegetable consumption. Studies investigating the social patterning of intention and self-efficacy in relation to physical activity also report that participants from higher socio-economic groups report greater intentions and self-efficacy to engage in physical activity, which were associated with more physical activity compared to their counterparts from lower socio-economic groups (Ball et al., 2007; Cerin & Leslie, 2008; De Cocker et al., 2012; Kamphuis et al., 2008, 2009; Murray, Rodgers, & Fraser, 2012; Pan et al., 2009). However, the findings on physical activity have also been inconsistent. For example, Godin, Sheeran, et al. (2010) found that only education moderated the intention–physical activity relationship, with no such effect being found for other socio-economic status (SES) indices including income and social deprivation. A more recent investigation by Sch€ uz et al. (2012) found no evidence of SES (expressed as district-level GDP) moderating the relationship between intention and physical activity. To our knowledge, only one study has examined the possible social patterning of self-efficacy on multiple behaviours: Diet, physical activity, smoking, and alcohol, reporting that self-efficacy explains part of the association between socio-economic status and the four types of behaviours (Grembowski et al., 1993). Taken together, these studies provide an inconsistent pattern of results with, for example, some finding associations with social patterning only amongst women (Pan et al., 2009), and some only for leisure-time activity (Ball et al., 2007). The self-report nature of the measures used to measure behaviour is another weakness of all these studies, not least because social desirability bias may be socially patterned. Furthermore, only a handful of these papers actually carried out a formal analysis of the moderating effect of SES on the intention–behaviour and self-efficacy–behaviour gap (Godin, Amireault, et al., 2010; Godin, Sheeran, et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2009; Sandvik et al., 2009; Sch€ uz et al., 2012) whilst using widely heterogeneous indices of SES thus precluding any possibility of systematic synthesis of these effects. A recent analysis of data sets concerning three behaviours – smoking in children, breastfeeding in first-time mothers, and physical activity in a workforce – reported that the intention–behaviour gap was narrower amongst those who were least socially deprived (Conner et al., 2013). That is, those who were least socially deprived were more likely to act in line with their intentions, compared to those who were more deprived. Surprisingly, the studies found no evidence for such interaction between deprivation and self-efficacy. This finding conflicts with the evidence reviewed above showing that self-efficacy, a correlate of self-control and more broadly executive function, is related to a range of health behaviours as well as being socially patterned. It should be noted, however, that all three sets of behaviours were assessed by self-report, and assessment of SES was by area of residence in one of the studies, occupation in another, and receipt of free school lunches in the third study. A more robust test using objective measures of behaviour and consistent measures of SES is needed to elucidate the nature of the association between deprivation and the intention–behaviour gap. 14 Milica Vasiljevic et al. In summary, uncertainty remains about the extent to which the intention–behaviour gap is moderated by socio-economic status. Significant moderation by socio-economic status could inform the design and targeting of interventions to reduce the inequality arising from the intention–behaviour gap, and caution against interventions that increase a socially moderated intention–behaviour gap. The present research This study comprises a series of analyses using existing data sets with robust measures to examine the extent to which SES modifies the relationship between intention and selfefficacy for different health behaviours. Study aims: 1. To estimate the extent to which the intention–behaviour relationship is moderated by SES in each of three sets of behaviour: Physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation. 2. To test the extent to which any associations vary with (i) how the target behaviour is measured (self-report vs. objectively measured) and (ii) the index of socio-economic status that is used (individual vs. area level). 3. To consider possible explanations for any observed attenuation of the intention– behaviour relationship in low-SES groups. Methods We analysed five data sets, each of which included the following variables: 1. Socio-economic status, measured using individual- and area-level indices. 2. Intention to perform a behaviour. 3. Self-efficacy to perform a behaviour. 4. Behaviour, measured using objective and/or self-report measures. The data sets available to us included randomized controlled trials of individual-level interventions aimed at changing one or more of three sets of behaviour (physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation). All studies were conducted in England between 2001 and 2012 and included data on 2,511 participants. The main results or protocol papers of these five data sets are published (Godino et al., 2012; Griffin et al., 2011; Kinmonth et al., 2008; Marteau, Aveyard, et al., 2012; Watkinson, van Sluijs, Sutton, Marteau, & Griffin, 2010). The analyses reported in this paper are novel and have not been reported elsewhere. Overview of included data sets and measures Socio-economic status was expressed in terms of individual- and area-level measures. Both measures were the same across all five studies. Age of leaving full-time education served as a measure of individual-level SES (see Chappell, Ota, Berryman, Elo, & Preston, 1996; Liberatos, Link, & Kelsey, 1988). This ordinal measure was coded into a binary categorical variable: 1 = full-time education finished at or below 18 years of age; 2 = full-time education finished after 18 years of age, following Conner et al. (2013). Postcode information was used to obtain an Index of Multiple Deprivation for each participant, serving as the measure of area-level SES. Following Conner et al. (2013), Moderating effect of SES 15 this ordinal variable was dichotomized as follows: 1 = low SES (high deprivation); 2 = high SES (low deprivation). Below follow the summaries of the individual studies and measures used. Medication (nicotine replacement therapy) adherence in smoking cessation – Marteau 2012 Participants comprised 633 smokers wanting to quit (54% women; Mage = 47.2 years) (see Marteau, Aveyard, et al., 2012). They were recruited from general practices and were randomized to receive information that their nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) dose was determined according to their genotype or alternatively their phenotype. Measures Intention to adhere to NRT use was measured by two items with good internal reliability (r = .69; a = .81) that were averaged into a single index: ‘Do you intend to use all your NRT every day in the first 4 weeks of your quit attempt?’ (1 = definitely do not, 7 = definitely do); ‘How likely is it that you will use all your NRT every day in the first 4 weeks of your quit attempt?’ (1 = not at all likely, 7 = extremely likely). Self-efficacy to use prescribed NRT was measured by two items that were averaged together (r = .57; a = .72): ‘I am confident I can use all my NRT every day in the first 4 weeks of my quit attempt’ (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); ‘How much control do you have over using all NRT every day in the first 4 weeks of quit attempt?’ (1 = no control, 7 = complete control). Objective measure of NRT adherence was obtained by a research nurse counting the pills consumed by each participants over 28 days following the smoking quit date (expressed as a continuous variable ranging from 0% = no NRT consumed, 100% = all NRT consumed). Physical activity: Data set 1 and diet – Griffin 2011 Participants in this trial comprised 478 patients (38% women; Mage = 59.7 years) recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They were randomized to receive either intensive medical treatment alone or intensive treatment coupled with facilitator-led, theory-based individual behaviour change intervention aimed at teaching patients key skills to facilitate change and maintenance of key behaviours (see Griffin et al., 2011). Measures Physical activity. Intention to be more physically active was measured by two items that were averaged together into a single index (r = .80; a = .89): ‘I intend to be more physically active in the next 12 months’; ‘It is likely that I will be more physically active in the next 12 months’ (both anchored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An index of self-efficacy to engage in physical activity was made by averaging two items together (r = .65; a = .78): ‘I am confident that I could be more physically active in the next 12 months, if I wanted to’; ‘It would be difficult for me to be more physically active in the next 12 months even if I wanted to’ (reverse scored) (both anchored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). 16 Milica Vasiljevic et al. Objective measure of physical activity was obtained by an ActiHeart device (CamNtech, Cambridge, UK; see Brage, Brage, Franks, Ekelund, & Wareham, 2005) recording participants’ activity via individually calibrated heart rate and movement sensing. Physical activity energy expenditure was captured at 12 months post-baseline and expressed as a continuous variable summarized in kJ/kg/day. Self-report measure of physical activity consisted of a validated questionnaire EPAQ2 (Wareham & Rennie, 1998) measured at 12 months post-baseline (expressed as a continuous variable denoting weekly total activity energy expenditure discounting resting). Diet. Intention to consume a lower fat diet was measured by two items that were combined in a composite measure (r = .8; a = .89): ‘I intend to eat a lower fat diet in the next 12 months’; ‘It is likely that I will eat a lower fat diet in the next 12 months’ (both anchored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Selfefficacy to consume a lower fat diet was measured by two items averaged together (r = .67; a = .8): ‘I am confident that I could eat a lower fat diet in the next 12 months, if I wanted to’; ‘It would be difficult for me to eat a lower fat diet in the next 12 months even if I wanted to’ (reverse scored) (anchored from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Self-report measure of consumption of fat as a percentage of energy consisted of a validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ; McKeown et al., 2001) calculated as a delta change score between participants’ measures obtained at baseline and after 12 months. This study did not use an objective measure of dietary fat. Physical activity data set 2 – Kinmonth 2008 Three hundred and sixty-five sedentary adults (62% women; Mage = 40.4 years) with parental history of type 2 diabetes participated in the ProActive trial. Participants were randomized to receive a brief advice leaflet (control group), theory-based facilitator-led behaviour change programme delivered in participants’ homes, or delivered via the telephone (Kinmonth et al., 2008). Measures Intention to be more physically active was measured by two items that were averaged together into a single index (r = .63; a = .77). Self-efficacy to be more physically active was measured by two items averaged in a single index (r = .39; a = .54). These items were identical to the ones used in the trial by Griffin et al. (2011) described above. Objective measure of physical activity was captured by the daytime physical activity ratio (dayPAR), which is the ratio of daytime energy expenditure to resting energy expenditure measured using heart rate monitoring with individual calibration for the heart rate–energy expenditure relationship (Polar monitor, Kempele, Finland). Our measure was obtained by calculating a delta change score between the measures gathered at baseline and after 1 year on participants’ energy expenditure levels. Self-report measure of physical activity consisted of a validated questionnaire EPAQ2 (Wareham & Rennie, 1998) calculated as a delta change score between participants’ measures obtained at baseline and after 1 year (expressed as a continuous variable denoting weekly total activity energy expenditure discounting resting). Moderating effect of SES 17 Physical activity data set 3 – Watkinson 2010 Four hundred and sixty-six healthy participants (57% women; Mage = 47.2 years) recruited from a population-based observational study were randomized to either a control group (no feedback) or to one of three types of personalized physical activity feedback groups (‘simple’, ‘visualized’, or ‘contextualized’) (see Watkinson et al., 2010). Measures Intention to be more physically active was measured by a single item: ‘I intend to be more physically active in the next 2 months’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Selfefficacy to engage in more physical activity was measured by two items identical to the ones used in Griffin et al. (2011) and Kinmonth et al. (2008) (r = .52; a = .67). Objective measure of physical activity was obtained by an ActiHeart device (CamNtech; see Brage et al., 2005) recording participants’ activity via individually calibrated heart rate and movement sensing (expressed as a continuous variable in kJ/kg/ day, in this case calculated as a delta change score between baseline and 2-month followup). Self-report measure of physical activity was obtained via a validated Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ; Besson, Brage, Jakes, Ekelund, & Wareham, 2010) that probes participants for their physical activity levels at work, travel, recreation, and domestic life (expressed as a continuous delta change score between baseline and 2-month follow-up). Physical activity data set 4 and diet – Godino 2012 Five hundred and sixty-nine participants (53% women; Mage = 47.1 years) recruited from a population-based observational study were randomized to standard lifestyle advice alone (control group), or in combination with a genetic or a phenotypic estimate of their lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes (see Godino et al., 2012). Measures Physical activity. Intention to be more physically active was measured by a single item: ‘I intend to be more physically active in the next 8 weeks’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Self-efficacy to engage in more physical activity was measured by a single item: ‘I am confident I could be more physically active if I wanted to’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Objective measure of physical activity was obtained by an ActiHeart device (CamNtech; see Brage et al., 2005) recording participants’ activity via individually calibrated heart rate and movement sensing (expressed as a continuous variable in kJ/kg/ day, calculated as a delta change score between baseline and follow-up). There was no selfreport measure of physical activity in this study. Diet. Intention to consume more fruit and vegetables was measured by a single item: ‘I intend to consume five servings of fruit and vegetables each day over the next 8 weeks’ (1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely). Self-efficacy to consume more fruit and vegetables was measured by a single item: ‘I feel confident in my ability to consume five servings of fruit and vegetables each day over the next 8 weeks’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). 18 Milica Vasiljevic et al. Self-report measure of fruit and vegetables consumption consisted of a validated questionnaire FFQ (McKeown et al., 2001) calculated as a delta change score between participants’ measures obtained at baseline and at follow-up. This study did not use an objective measure of consumption of fruit and vegetables. Analyses Regression analyses First, we examined the distribution and intercorrelation of measures (see Tables 1–5). Second, using the same strategy as Conner et al. (2013), we conducted a series of multiple linear regression analyses for each target behaviour in each study in turn. Before analyses, we mean-centred the indices of intention and self-efficacy and standardized the final scores of the behaviours in studies where the use of delta change scores was not possible. At Step 1, we entered the demographic variables: Age, gender, and SES. At Step 2, we added the variables of intention and self-efficacy. In the third and final step, we added the interaction terms between SES and the mean-centred indices of intention or self-efficacy. Meta-analyses For the second part of this paper, we pooled the results of our models and examined them as part of meta-analyses to provide a more robust test of the hypothesis that SES moderates the intention–behaviour gap, thus providing more precise estimates of effect sizes (see Cumming, 2014, for discussion and recommendation of this procedure). We conducted separate meta-analyses for objective and self-report measures of behaviours and different types of SES index (individual vs. area level). Final measurements and delta scores In our studies, measures of intention and behaviour were well aligned. In other words, in some of our studies participants indicated their intentions to change a particular behaviour, whereas in some studies participants indicated their intentions to simply Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (medication adherence in smoking cessation – Marteau 2012) 1 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Ethnicity 4. Individual-level SES 5. Area-level SES 6. Self-efficacy 7. Intention 8. Objective NRT on day 28 Mean SD 2 .08* – – 47.23 13.31 3 .07 .11** 1.18 0.65 4 5 6 .04 .08* .05 .09* .08 .04 .04 .01 .09* .01 .04 .07 0.16 0.37 0.16 0.36 5.95 1.14 Note. NRT = nicotine replacement therapy; SES = socio-economic status. Significance denoted as *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 7 .11** .12** .04 .05 .01 .52*** 6.31 1.02 8 .02 .08* .06 .12*** .00 .01 .03 66.04 37.74 – – 59.67 7.50 .04 2 1.04 0.28 .10* .07 3 4 0.18 0.38 .08 .13** .24*** Note. SES = socio-economic status. Significance denoted as *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Ethnicity 4. Individual-level SES 5. Area-level SES 6. Self-efficacy (PA) 7. Self-efficacy (diet) 8. Intention (PA) 9. Intention (Diet) 10. Objective (PA) 11. Subjective (PA) 12. Subjective delta (diet) Mean SD 1 0.80 0.40 .03 .01 .04 .11* 5 3.75 0.86 .10 .24*** .07 .18*** .01 6 3.73 0.81 .00 .1**5 .09 .01 .00 .42*** 7 Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (physical activity, diet – Griffin 2011) 3.75 0.78 .08 .18*** .08 .08 .05 .67*** .39*** 8 3.77 0.94 .03 .11* .07 .01 .01 .32*** .70*** .49*** 9 34.49 17.08 .25*** .35*** .01 .02 .01 .18*** .13** .09 .10* 10 87.58 53.11 .14** .18*** .07 .04 .04 .14*** .11* .19*** .16** .30*** 11 0.78 5.90 .04 .05 .06 .00 .10 .05 .13** .09 .15** .00 .14** 12 Moderating effect of SES 19 20 Milica Vasiljevic et al. Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (physical activity – Kinmonth 2008) 1 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Individual-level SES 4. Area-level SES 5. Self-efficacy 6. Intention 7. Objective PA delta 8. Subjective PA delta Mean SD – – 2 3 4 5 .02 .13* .06 .04 .00 .07 .11* .06 .09 .08 40.42 5.96 0.24 0.43 0.92 0.27 6 3.84 0.59 .02 .12* .01 .00 .46*** 3.72 0.63 7 8 .02 .06 .00 .03 .03 .03 .06 .02 .10 .12* .04 .11 .03 0.11 0.60 16.99 50.52 Note. SES = socio-economic status. Significance denoted as *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (physical activity – Watkinson 2010) 1 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Ethnicity 4. Individual-level SES 5. Area-level SES 6. Self-efficacy 7. Intention 8. Objective PA delta 9. Subjective PA delta Mean SD – – 2 3 4 .08 .07 .03 .03 .01* .01* 47.19 6.79 1.01 0.12 0.27 0.45 5 .02 .01 .05 .15** 0.60 0.49 6 .04 .09* .03 .02 .01 3.49 0.77 7 .06 .11* .05 .06 .08 .39*** 3.34 0.87 8 .10* .04 .01 .10* .10 .15** .11* 0.39 12.19 9 .05 .00 .04 .04 .01 .08 .07 .04 24.19 58.01 Note. SES = socio-economic status. Significance denoted as *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. engage in certain behaviours. Therefore, some of our included studies used changes from baseline and some used final measurements alone. Measures of the actual change were then derived by calculating before-and-after differences in the behaviour of interest. Change scores provide a more powerful test by eliminating undesirable betweenparticipant variability. Furthermore, changes from baseline are addressing exactly the same underlying moderation effects as analyses based on final measurements. Change scores were used when possible to increase precision and those studies were appropriately given higher weights in the meta-analyses. However, as can be seen from the study-level analyses (see Appendix S1), no systematic differences emerged between studies using change scores and final outcome measures. Random-effects meta-analysis Regression models were fitted individually to the data sets for self-report and objective measures of behaviour. The outcomes of interest in our meta-analyses were the Moderating effect of SES 21 Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations (physical activity, diet – Godino 2012) 1 2 1. Gender .02 2. Age 3. Individual-level SES 4. Area-level SES 5. Self-efficacy (PA) 6. Intention (PA) 7. Self-efficacy (diet) 8. Intention (diet) 9. Objective delta (PA) 10. Subjective delta (diet) Mean – 47.09 SD – 7.34 3 .10* .12** 0.44 0.50 4 .13** .10* .19*** 0.59 0.49 5 6 7 8 9 .06 .04 .05 .01 .12 .04 .01 .02 .32 .08 .13 .02 .02 .28 .12 .11 .16 .03 .06 .20 .10 .76 .01 .03 .01 .04 .05 .07 .05 .04 3.87 0.77 3.40 0.86 3.89 0.96 10 .00 .08 .06 .01 .01 .02 .00 .03 .03 3.84 1.40 6.29 0.97 15.23 285.47 Note. SES = socio-economic status. Significance denoted as *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. unstandardized regression coefficients estimating the interactions between individual- or area-level SES, and intention or self-efficacy: Individual-level SES 9 intention, individuallevel SES 9 self-efficacy, area-level SES 9 intention, area-level SES 9 self-efficacy. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted across studies for each of these four interaction terms separately for self-report and objective measures of behaviour, generating eight meta-analyses in total. Heterogeneity The chi-squared test for heterogeneity showed no significant results. As the chi-squared test of heterogeneity has low power in a meta-analysis when studies are few in number as in our case, a p-value of .10, rather than the conventional level of .05, was used, thus providing a more conservative test. Results Individual analyses of studies In the regression analyses, we found no support for the hypothesized moderation of the intention–behaviour gap by socio-economic status. In particular, none of the interactions involving SES was statistically significant.1 A detailed breakdown of these analyses can be seen in the Appendix S1 accompanying this paper. Meta-analyses Meta-analyses for both objective and self-report measures of behaviour in each of the five studies, using both individual- and area-level measures of SES, did not show significant moderation between SES and intention on behaviour. At a meta-level, using objectively measured behaviour only and SES as an area-level variable, meta-analyses revealed a 1 All five studies included in our analyses were randomized controlled trials. Therefore, we also carried out our analyses by controlling for randomization condition which did not change our findings. 22 Milica Vasiljevic et al. significant interaction between self-efficacy and SES (B = .17 [95% CI = 0.02, 0.31]). This was the only statistically significant effect. Breaking down the significant interaction into simple main effects showed that the health behaviours of individuals living in more deprived areas did not change with their level of self-efficacy, whereas individuals living in less deprived areas engaged in more healthy behaviours when they had higher self-efficacy (Figures 1 and 2). Interestingly, albeit not significant, the interaction between area-level SES and intention using objectively measured behaviour reveals a pattern of results that is different from the findings reported by Conner et al. (2013). The meta-analyses did not provide an indication of any other trends in the data. Discussion This paper examined the hypothesized moderation by SES of the relationship between intention and behaviour, and self-efficacy and behaviour. Across five studies, using both multiple linear regression analyses and meta-analyses on both objective and self-report measures of behaviour, and using both individual- and area-level measures of SES, we found no significant interactions between SES and intention on behaviour. Using objectively measured behaviour and area-level deprivation, meta-analyses suggested that the gap between self-efficacy and behaviour was greater amongst the more deprived. No other effect was significant. The strongest evidence to date for the moderation by SES of the intention–behaviour gap presented analyses from three studies all of which used self-report measures of behaviour (Conner et al., 2013). SES did not moderate the relationship between selfefficacy and behaviour. By contrast, we did not replicate these findings for self-reported health behaviours in any of the five studies in which we followed Conner’s data analytic approach. We did, however, replicate the lack of moderation of SES for the relationship between self-efficacy and behaviour. By pooling our data into meta-analyses for a more robust test of the hypotheses and using objective measures of behaviour, we again failed to replicate the intention–behaviour moderation by SES. We did, however, find that SES moderated the link between self-efficacy and behaviour when SES was measured as an area-level variable. Study Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants Study 0.05 [ –0.40 , 0.51 ] –0.05 [ –0.27 , 0.17 ] –0.20 [ –0.91 , 0.52 ] Physical activity Griffin 2011 478 Watkinson 2010 544 Kinmonth 2008 365 Diet Griffin 2011 Godino 2012 –0.41 [ –0.87 , 0.05 ] 0.03 [ –0.26 , 0.32 ] Diet Griffin 2011 Godino 2012 –0.06 [ –0.21 , 0.09 ] RE model summary 478 569 RE model summary –1.00 0.00 Study Study Physical activity Griffin 2011 478 Watkinson 2010 544 Kinmonth 2008 365 Diet Griffin 2011 Godino 2012 0.26 [ –0.15 , 0.67 ] –0.08 [ –0.34 , 0.18 ] Diet Griffin 2011 Godino 2012 0.00 [ –0.15 , 0.15 ] –1.00 0.00 1.00 Individual−level SES x intention effect size 1.00 Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants 0.12 [ –0.29 , 0.53 ] –0.04 [ –0.29 , 0.21 ] –0.11 [ –0.62 , 0.39 ] RE model summary 0.00 [ –0.19 , 0.19 ] 0.00 Area−level SES x self-efficacy effect size Physical activity Griffin 2011 478 Watkinson 2010 544 Kinmonth 2008 365 478 569 0.42 [ 0.00 , 0.85 ] 0.04 [ –0.27 , 0.34 ] –1.00 Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants –0.20 [ –0.61 , 0.20 ] –0.10 [ –0.36 , 0.15 ] –0.11 [ –0.83 , 0.61 ] 478 569 1.00 Area−level SES x intention effect size Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants Physical activity Griffin 2011 478 Watkinson 2010 544 Kinmonth 2008 365 –0.18 [ –0.55 , 0.20 ] –0.02 [ –0.28 , 0.24 ] 0.37 [ –0.14 , 0.88 ] 0.01 [ –0.34 , 0.37 ] 0.01 [ –0.26 , 0.28 ] 478 569 RE model summary 0.00 [ –0.14 , 0.15 ] –1.00 0.00 1.00 Individual−level SES x self-efficacy effect size Figure 1. Forest plots of the interactions between individual- (bottom) and area-level (top) socioeconomic status (SES) with intention (left) and self-efficacy (right) on self-reported behaviours. Moderating effect of SES Study Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants Physical activity Griffin 2011 Watkinson 2010 Kinmonth 2008 Godino 2012 478 544 365 569 Smoking Marteau 2012 633 –0.13 [ –0.55 , 0.30 ] –0.20 [ –0.46 , 0.06 ] –0.47 [ –1.28 , 0.35 ] –0.18 [ –0.41 , 0.05 ] 0.09 [ –0.19 , 0.37 ] –0.12 [ –0.26 , 0.01 ] RE model summary –1.50 –0.50 0.50 Study 478 544 365 569 0.28 [ –0.11 , 0.67 ] 0.21 [ –0.10 , 0.52 ] 0.69 [ –0.08 , 1.47 ] 0.17 [ –0.08 , 0.43 ] Smoking Marteau 2012 633 0.02 [ –0.24 , 0.29 ] Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants 0.17 [ 0.02 , 0.31 ] RE model summary –1.50 Area−level SES x intention effect size Study Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants Physical activity Griffin 2011 Watkinson 2010 Kinmonth 2008 Godino 2012 1.50 –0.50 0.50 1.50 Area−level SES x self−efficacy effect size Study Moderation effect [95% CI] Participants Physical activity Griffin 2011 Watkinson 2010 Kinmonth 2008 Godino 2012 478 544 365 569 0.15 [ –0.24 , 0.54 ] –0.14 [ –0.43 , 0.15 ] –0.28 [ –0.75 , 0.20 ] 0.06 [ –0.16 , 0.27 ] Physical activity Griffin 2011 Watkinson 2010 Kinmonth 2008 Godino 2012 478 544 365 569 –0.06 [ –0.42 , 0.31 ] 0.20 [ –0.11 , 0.51 ] 0.35 [ –0.13 , 0.82 ] –0.16 [ –0.39 , 0.08 ] Smoking Marteau 2012 633 –0.01 [ –0.26 , 0.23 ] Smoking Marteau 2012 633 –0.12 [ –0.37 , 0.12 ] –0.01 [ –0.14 , 0.11 ] RE model summary RE model summary –1.50 –0.50 0.50 1.50 Individual−level SES x intention effect size 23 –0.01 [ −0.18 , 0.16 ] –1.50 –0.50 0.50 1.50 Individual−level SES x self−efficacy effect size Figure 2. Forest plots of the interactions between individual- (bottom) and area-level (top) socioeconomic status (SES) with intention (left) and self-efficacy (right) on objectively measured behaviours. We consider five possible explanations for our non-replication of Conner et al.’s (2013) findings, relating to differences in samples, measures, types of behaviours studied, data analysis, and data interpretation. Although there were some differences in populations sampled, measures used, types of behaviour studied, and data analytic approach, there were also sufficient similarities in all these domains to suggest that they are unlikely explanations for the non-replication. In addition, we note that the strength of associations between SES and intention was similarly small and not significant in all three of Conner’s data sets and all five data sets included in the current analysis. We therefore turn to discuss differences in data interpretation that may have led to our non-replication. Statistical power Considering the small effect sizes of the interactions between intention and SES on behaviour, it is important to consider the statistical power for detecting these small effect sizes. Our studies (combined n = 2,511) had more statistical power for detecting these interactions than did Conner et al. (combined n = 1,537) and furthermore, we pooled our studies into a meta-analysis, thereby allowing us to provide a more robust test of the moderation hypothesis. This way we were able to address a common limitation of field experiments, where tests for moderations are often underpowered (cf. McClelland & Judd, 1993). That we did not find the interactions reported by Conner in the analyses of the individual studies and meta-analyses points to the need for caution in the interpretation of SES as a potential moderator of the intention–behaviour gap. Effect sizes Our analyses highlight the need to consider effect sizes in research rather than to rely on traditional significance tests (cf. Ioannidis, 2005). An examination of Conner et al.’s effects reveals small effects that may contribute to the non-replicability of the SES moderation of the intention–behaviour gap. Our study points to the need to re-evaluate the importance of intention in the social patterning of health behaviours. Considering the 24 Milica Vasiljevic et al. small effects obtained by Conner, other variables beyond intention are needed to elucidate the socio-economic patterning of health behaviours. Moreover, whilst Conner et al. reported medium to large effects between intention and behaviour, and self-efficacy and behaviour, we found weak and inconsistent relationships between intention and behaviour, and self-efficacy and behaviour in our studies. Our findings are compatible with the meta-analysis by Webb and Sheeran (2006), which concluded that the link between intention and behaviour is much weaker than previously assumed (cf. Armitage & Conner, 2001). The authors found that interventions that had a large effect on individuals’ intentions only produced a small change in behaviour that can be attributed to the intentional control of behaviour. They went on to suggest that as the interventions may have activated behaviour-consistent goals outside of participants’ conscious awareness, future research on behaviour change should explore non-conscious processes. Executive function is one such set of pertinent non-conscious processes (Marteau & Hall, 2013). Executive function is a theorized control network linked to the prefrontal cortex that regulates behaviour, comprising three core cognitive functions: Response inhibition (including self-control), working memory, and attention (Diamond, 2013). Importantly, it engenders the ability to persist with a goal in unsupportive environments. Several studies to date have investigated aspects of executive functioning as modifiers of the well-established gap between behavioural intentions and actual behaviour. For example, differences in executive functioning were used to explain variations in maintaining a healthy lifestyle amongst undergraduates (including daily fruit and vegetable consumption, engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, sleeping at least 8 hr per night, consuming breakfast, moderating the consumption of alcohol, and avoiding smoking) (Booker & Mullan, 2013; for a review see Vainik, Dagher, Dube, & Fellows, 2013). Importantly, executive function (particularly response inhibition) was significantly predictive of engagement with healthier behaviours amongst those students living in environments unsupportive of healthier behaviours (Booker & Mullan, 2013). Growing evidence also shows that executive function in childhood and adulthood is associated with socio-economic status at birth (Moffitt et al., 2011; Raver, Blair, & Willoughby, 2013). In our sample, the relationship between health behaviour and self-efficacy (the ability to control behaviour and a correlate of executive function) was moderated by SES. This gap was greatest amongst those living in areas of high deprivation, further highlighting the importance of the environment as a non-conscious behavioural cue, the need to explore the role of executive function in the enactment of health behaviours, and how this may be modified by SES. Future studies investigating this could usefully integrate more direct measures of executive function, such as the Stroop, Stop Signal, and Go/No Go tasks (for a discussion of different executive function measures see Diamond, 2013). Priors Another pertinent point for discussion concerns the prior expectation, based on evidence, that SES moderates the relationship between intention and behaviour. Many of the papers reporting social patterning in the execution of different health behaviours did not formally test for the moderating effects of SES on the relationship between intention and self-efficacy with behaviour (Ball et al., 2007, 2009; Bere et al., 2008; Cerin & Leslie, 2008; De Cocker et al., 2012; Kamphuis et al., 2008, 2009; Leganger & Kraft, 2003; Murray et al., 2012). Furthermore, the few papers that did test for such moderating effects have been inconsistent, reporting no significant effects of moderation by SES on intention Moderating effect of SES 25 to be more physically active (Sch€ uz et al., 2012), or to eat more fruits and vegetables (Godin, Amireault, et al., 2010), with Godin, Sheeran, et al. (2010) finding that only education moderated the intention–physical activity relationship, with no such effect being found for other SES indices including income and social deprivation. Therefore, the priors taken together in conjunction with ours and Conner et al.’s findings suggest that the relationship between SES and the intention–behaviour gap is more complex than previously thought and requires further empirical investigation. In a similar vein, Godin’s (2013) invited commentary on the Conner et al. (2013) paper argued that the moderation of the intention–behaviour gap by SES requires further examination. Godin surmised that the inconsistent effects may arise from differences in the cultural context in which a study was conducted, the characteristics of the sample under study, the nature of the behaviour studied as well as the type of SES index used (individual or area level). Our analyses hint that the type of SES index used may affect the results of such analyses. Future studies should use different operationalizations of SES, utilizing both area- and individual-level indices of SES, to capture different facets of relative deprivation. Moreover, our findings highlight the need to replicate these analyses with more varied health behaviours (including more episodic behaviours). The paucity of studies formally testing the moderating role of SES of the intention– behaviour gap, combined with the heterogeneity in the measurement of SES, precludes us from conducting a systematic review on the topic. However, prior evidence and our robust combined analyses of data sets that had homogeneous indices of SES (both individual and area level) suggest that thus far there is no evidence of a larger intention– behaviour gap amongst the more deprived. Strengths and limitations of the present research and recommendations for further empirical investigations A notable strength of our study is that it is the first to use objectively measured health behaviours to examine the social patterning of the gap between intention and behaviour, as well as between self-efficacy and behaviour. Furthermore, the studies included in the current analyses used both individual- and area-level measures of SES, uniformly measured across all five studies, allowing us to examine the varying effects of SES as a function of how it is measured. Our finding of a significant moderation of the relationship between self-efficacy and behaviour only when SES was captured as an area-level variable suggests that SES may have different effects on health behaviours depending on how it is defined. Prior studies have demonstrated a relationship between area-level deprivation with physical activity and diet, via decreased access to neighbourhood opportunities to be more physically active (Panter, Jones, & Hillsdon, 2008) and via increased access to unhealthy food outlets (Burgoine, Forouhi, Griffin, Wareham, & Monsivais, 2014). Thus, it is plausible that area-level deprivation interacts with the particular types of behaviour we examined that depend on environmental influences. Measures of individual-level SES may perhaps interact with behaviours whose execution does not depend on the wider environment, such as daily brushing of teeth and condom wearing. The differential effects of area versus individual level of SES warrant further empirical investigation. Adding further strength to our studies are the well-developed and matched measures of intention and self-efficacy. Our studies for the most part used multiple indices to measure intention and self-efficacy which had good interitem reliabilities. This contrasts with Conner et al.’s (2013) studies that used single-item measures of intentions in two of the three included studies. Furthermore, all our studies used intention and self-efficacy 26 Milica Vasiljevic et al. indices that were carefully time-matched with the behaviour measures (for more details see Methods section). One of the limitations of our studies is that we only looked at three health behaviours. As we used strict criteria in selecting studies that measured behaviours objectively and/or subjectively, captured SES at both individual and area level, and had well-matched and reliable indices of intention and self-efficacy, we limited our analyses to the five studies which measured physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation. All three health behaviours we examined are habitual; therefore, a question remains whether the same pattern of results would emerge for episodic health behaviours, such as screening and vaccination. Previous research has suggested that the impact of intentions may be diminished in habitual health behaviours (Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Therefore, future work should aim to further investigate the relationship between SES, intention, self-efficacy, and health behaviours, using different examples of health behaviours, including episodic health behaviours. Finally, we carried out multiple statistical analyses on our dependent variables of interest, thus potentially inflating the familywise type I error rate. Therefore, our only significant effect observed may be due to chance and type I error. The robustness of our conclusions therefore depends on future replications. Implications for future research and policy There are two major implications for future research and policy arising from our analyses: Interventions targeting the intention–behaviour gap may not be effective to counter SES related health disparities. The effect sizes observed in previous studies were small and the effects did not replicate in the present research using both subjective and objective measures. This underlines the importance of replication studies and considering effect sizes as a criterion to evaluate research outcomes, in addition to statistical significance (Cohen, 1994). At present, there is no compelling evidence for a socio-economic patterning of the intention–behaviour gap. This finding, combined with evidence that intentions are weak predictors of behaviour regardless of SES, adds further weight to the scientific case for targeting non-conscious processes to change behaviour across all social groups (Marteau, Hollands, & Fletcher, 2012; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Acknowledgements We would like to thank Stephen Sharp for his comments regarding our data analytic approach. The study was funded by the Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]). The Department of Health had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation. The research was conducted independently of the funders, and the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health in England. The final version of the report and ultimate decision to submit for publication was determined by the authors. References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Moderating effect of SES 27 Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499. doi:10.1348/014466601164939 Ball, K., MacFarlane, A., Crawford, D., Savige, G., Andrianopoulos, N., & Worsley, A. (2009). Can social cognitive theory constructs explain socio-economic variations in adolescent eating behaviours? A mediation analysis. Health Education Research, 24, 496–506. doi:10.1093/her/cyn048 Ball, K., Timperio, A., Salmon, J., Giles-Corti, B., Roberts, R., & Crawford, D. (2007). Personal, social and environmental determinants of educational inequalities in walking: A multilevel study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 108–114. doi:10.1136/jech.2006. 048520 Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology and Health, 13, 623–649. doi:10.1080/08870449808407422 Bere, E., van Lenthe, F., Klepp, K. I., & Brug, J. (2008). Why do parents’ education level and income affect the amount of fruits and vegetables adolescents eat? European Journal of Public Health, 18, 611–615. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn081 Besson, H., Brage, S., Jakes, R. W., Ekelund, U., & Wareham, N. J. (2010). Estimating physical activity energy expenditure, sedentary time, and physical activity intensity by self-report in adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91, 106–114. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28432 Booker, L., & Mullan, B. (2013). Using the temporal self-regulation theory to examine the influence of environmental cues on maintaining a healthy lifestyle. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 745–762. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12015 Brage, S., Brage, N., Franks, P. W., Ekelund, U., & Wareham, N. J. (2005). Reliability and validity of the combined heart rate and movement sensor Actiheart. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 561–570. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602118 Burgoine, T., Forouhi, N. G., Griffin, S. J., Wareham, N. J., & Monsivais, P. (2014). Associations between exposure to takeaway food outlets, takeaway food consumption, and body weight in Cambridgeshire, UK: Population based, cross sectional study. BMJ, 348(g1464), 1–10. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1464 Cerin, E., & Leslie, E. (2008). How socio-economic status contributes to participation in leisure-time physical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 2596–2609. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008. 02.012 Chappell, J., Ota, Y., Berryman, K., Elo, I. T., & Preston, S. H. (1996). Educational differentials in mortality: United States, 1979–85. Social Science and Medicine, 42, 47–57. doi:10.1016/02779536(95)00062-3 Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.49.12.997 Conner, M., McEachan, R., Jackson, C., McMillan, B., Woolridge, M., & Lawton, R. (2013). Moderating effect of socioeconomic status on the relationship between health cognitions and behaviors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46, 19–30. doi:10.1007/s12160-013-9481-y Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29. doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 De Cocker, K., Artero, E. G., De Henauw, S., Dietrich, S., Gottrand, F., Beghin, L., . . . De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2012). Can differences in physical activity by socio-economic status in European adolescents be explained by differences in psychosocial correlates? A mediation analysis within the HELENA (Healthy Lifestyle in Europe by Nutrition in Adolescence) Study. Public Health Nutrition, 15, 2100–2109. doi:10.1017/S1368980012001036 Department of Health (1999). Saving lives: Our healthier nation. London, UK: Stationery Office. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. doi:10.1146/ annurev-psych-113011-143750 Godin, G. (2013). Does socioeconomic status moderate the relationship between health cognitions and behaviors?: A comment on Conner et al.. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46, 3–4. doi:10.1007/s12160-013-9495-5 28 Milica Vasiljevic et al. Godin, G., Amireault, S., Belanger-Gravel, A., Vohl, M. C., Perusse, L., & Guillaumie, L. (2010). Prediction of daily fruit and vegetable consumption among overweight and obese individuals. Appetite, 54, 480–484. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.01.018 Godin, G., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., Belanger-Gravel, A., Gallani, M. C. B., & Nolin, B. (2010). Social structure, social cognition, and physical activity: A test of four models. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 79–95. doi:10.1348/135910709X429901 Godino, J. G., van Sluijs, E. M., Marteau, T. M., Sutton, S., Sharp, S. J., & Griffin, S. J. (2012). Effect of communicating genetic and phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes in combination with lifestyle advice on objectively measured physical activity: Protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 12, 444. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-444 Grembowski, D., Patrick, D., Diehr, P., Durham, M., Beresford, S., Kay, E., & Hecht, J. (1993). Selfefficacy and health behavior among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 89–104. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137237 Griffin, S. J., Simmons, R. K., Williams, K. M., Prevost, A. T., Hardeman, W., Grant, J., . . . Kinmonth, A. L. (2011). Protocol for the ADDITION-Plus study: A randomised controlled trial of an individually-tailored behaviour change intervention among people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes under intensive UK general practice care. BMC Public Health, 11, 211. doi:10.1186/ 1471-2458-11-211 Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Judge, K., Platt, S., Costongs, C., & Jurczak, K. (2006). Health inequalities: A challenge for Europe. London, UK: Department of Health. Kamphuis, C. B., Van Lenthe, F. J., Giskes, K., Huisman, M., Brug, J., & Mackenbach, J. P. (2008). Socioeconomic status, environmental and individual factors, and sports participation. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 71–81. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318158e467 Kamphuis, C. B., Van Lenthe, F. J., Giskes, K., Huisman, M., Brug, J., & Mackenbach, J. P. (2009). Socioeconomic differences in lack of recreational walking among older adults: The role of neighbourhood and individual factors. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 1. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-6-1 Kinmonth, A. L., Wareham, N. J., Hardeman, W., Sutton, S., Prevost, A. T., Fanshawe, T., . . . Griffin, S. J. (2008). Efficacy of a theory-based behavioural intervention to increase physical activity in an at-risk group in primary care (ProActive UK): A randomised trial. The Lancet, 371, 41–48. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60070-7 Laaksonen, M., Talala, K., Martelin, T., Rahkonen, O., Roos, E., Helakorpi, S., . . . Pr€att€al€a, R. (2008). Health behaviours as explanations for educational level differences in cardiovascular and allcause mortality: A follow-up of 60 000 men and women over 23 years. The European Journal of Public Health, 18, 38–43. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckm051 Lantz, P. M., House, J. S., Lepkowski, J. M., Williams, D. R., Mero, R. P., & Chen, J. (1998). Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: Results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults. JAMA, 279, 1703–1708. doi:10.1001/jama.279.21.1703 Leganger, A., & Kraft, P. (2003). Control constructs: Do they mediate the relation between educational attainment and health behaviour? Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 361–372. doi:10.1177/13591053030083006 Liberatos, P., Link, B. G., & Kelsey, J. L. (1988). The measurement of social class in epidemiology. Epidemiologic Reviews, 10, 87–121. Lynch, J. W., Kaplan, G. A., & Salonen, J. T. (1997). Why do poor people behave poorly? Variation in adult health behaviours and psychosocial characteristics by stages of the socioeconomic lifecourse. Social Science & Medicine, 44, 809–819. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00191-8 Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469–479. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9 Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet, 365, 1099–1104. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71146-6 Moderating effect of SES 29 Marmot, M. G., Allen, J., Goldblatt, P., Boyce, T., McNeish, D., Grady, M., & Geddes, I. (2010). Fair society, healthy lives: Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010, the Marmot review. London, UK: UCL. Marteau, T. M., Aveyard, P., Munaf o, M. R., Prevost, A. T., Hollands, G. J., Armstrong, D., . . . Kinmonth, A. L. (2012). Effect on adherence to nicotine replacement therapy of informing smokers their dose is determined by their genotype: A randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 7, e35249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035249 Marteau, T. M., & Hall, P. A. (2013). Breadlines, brains, and behaviour. BMJ, 347(f6750), 1–2. doi:10.1136/bmj.f6750 Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Changing human behaviour to prevent disease: The importance of targeting automatic processes. Science, 337, 1492–1495. doi:10.1126/science.1226918 Martikainen, P., Brunner, E., & Marmot, M. (2003). Socioeconomic differences in dietary patterns among middle-aged men and women. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1397–1410. doi:10.1016/ S0277-9536(02)00137-5 McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376 McKeown, N. M., Day, N. E., Welch, A. A., Runswick, S. A., Luben, R. N., Mulligan, A. A., . . . Bingham, S. A. (2001). Use of biological markers to validate self-reported dietary intake in a random sample of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer United Kingdom Norfolk cohort. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 74, 188–196. Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., . . . Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108, 2693–2698. doi:10.1073/ pnas.1010076108 Murray, T. C., Rodgers, W. M., & Fraser, S. N. (2012). Exploring the relationship between socioeconomic status, control beliefs and exercise behavior: A multiple mediator model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 63–73. doi:10.1007/s10865-011-9327-7 Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (1998). ‘Inclined abstainers’: A problem for predicting health-related behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 151–165. doi:10.1111/j.20448309.1998.tb01162.x Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.124.1.54 Pan, S. Y., Cameron, C., DesMeules, M., Morrison, H., Craig, C. L., & Jiang, X. (2009). Individual, social, environmental, and physical environmental correlates with physical activity among Canadians: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 9, 21. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-21 Panter, J., Jones, A., & Hillsdon, M. (2008). Equity of access to physical activity facilities in an English city. Preventive Medicine, 46, 303–307. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.11.005 Raver, C. C., Blair, C., & Willoughby, M. (2013). Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility. Developmental Psychology, 49, 292–304. doi:10.1037/a0028343 Sandvik, C., Gjestad, R., Samdal, O., Brug, J., & Klepp, K. I. (2009). Does socio-economic status moderate the associations between psychosocial predictors and fruit intake in schoolchildren? The Pro Children study. Health Education Research, 25, 121–134. doi:10.1093/her/cyp055 Sch€ uz, B., Wurm, S., Ziegelmann, J. P., Wolff, J. K., Warner, L. M., Schwarzer, R., & Tesch-R€ omer, C. (2012). Contextual and individual predictors of physical activity: Interactions between environmental factors and health cognitions. Health Psychology, 31, 714–723. doi:10.1037/ a0027596 Stringhini, S., Sabia, S., Shipley, M., Brunner, E., Nabi, H., Kivimaki, M., & Singh-Manoux, A. (2010). Association of socioeconomic position with health behaviors and mortality. JAMA, 303, 1159– 1166. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.297 30 Milica Vasiljevic et al. Vainik, U., Dagher, A., Dube, L., & Fellows, L. K. (2013). Neurobehavioural correlates of body mass index and eating behaviours in adults: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 279–299. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.008 van Oort, F. V., van Lenthe, F. J., & Mackenbach, J. P. (2005). Material, psychosocial, and behavioural factors in the explanation of educational inequalities in mortality in the Netherlands. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 214–220. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.016493 Wareham, N. J., & Rennie, K. L. (1998). The assessment of physical activity in individuals and populations: Why try to be more precise about how physical activity is assessed? International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 22, S30–S38. Watkinson, C., van Sluijs, E. M., Sutton, S., Marteau, T., & Griffin, S. J. (2010). Randomised controlled trial of the effects of physical activity feedback on awareness and behaviour in UK adults: The FAB study protocol [ISRCTN92551397]. BMC Public Health, 10, 144. doi:10.1186/1471-245810-144 Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249–268. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 Received 18 May 2015; revised version received 3 July 2015 Supporting Information The following supporting information may be found in the online edition of the article: Appendix S1. Individual regression analyses for the five data sets. Copyright of British Journal of Health Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Running head: SMOKING CESSATION SMOKING CESSATION EVIDANCE TABLE MSN5300 Advanced Nursing Inquiry and Evidence-Based Practice Ricardo Guzman, Marina Fuller, Aniel Louis Jean, Felix Sanchez, Jackson Etienne, Karine Suarez, Yonaicris Plasencia, Eduardo Frei, Mirtha Hernandez. Samuel Dinamarca, Yenis Carrera,Yunior Zaldivar. Miami Regional University Dr. Bernadette Dike October 2, 2020 1 SMOKING CESSATION 2 EVIDENCE TABLE Question: In smoking population, does behavioral therapy in combination with pharmacology medication would be better than Pharmacology medication alone to help people in Smoking cessation? Article Author # & Date Evidence Sample Size Study findings that Type Limitations help answer the Raiting question 1 Ebbert et Quantitative al. Experimental (2017) Evidence Level Quality 270 The combination of Bupropion is randomized four sessions of in- no more cigarette person behavioral effective than smokers counseling and NRT bupropion sustained release in the Step Care group, increased prolonged smoking I A III A There is no biochemical verification of the study abstinence significantly. Stepped care approach is costeffective. 2 Patnode et Non- al. Experimental (2015) Systematic reviews 638 Behavioral Review of abstracts interventions reviews and 114 increased smoking full-text cessation at month reviews 6 or more. approach. Methods and quality of the SMOKING CESSATION 3 Six reviews served included as primary reviews reviews that on the effectiveness synthesized of NRT, bupropion the bodies of or varenicline. evidence. 40 trials found a The statistically limitations of significant benefit the primary of combined studies pharmacotherapy themselves. (primarily NRT or bupropion) and behavioral interventions on smoking cessation 3 Ghamri Non- (2018) experimental Systematic reviews 4 databases A combination of The NRT´s was more limitations of effective than the primary monotherapy. studies Interventions that combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral support increased the success of smoking cessation compared with minimal themselves. III A SMOKING CESSATION 4 intervention or usual care 4 Çelik & Non- Smokers Sevi with at least treatments were limitations of 18 years old. more efficient the primary Experimental (2020). Systematic reviews 20 studies CBT-based when applied as studies individual themselves. Groups of 5- therapies. 6 The III A I A Quality and Effectiveness gets methods of higher when the articles medication and analyzed NRT are also combined with CBT. 5 Kamile et Experimental al. Quantitive (2017) 3322 people The rates of It was not smoking cessation studied the in the cases using combination varenicline and of NRT and behavioral therapy behavioral were significantly therapy higher compared to the cases using bupropion and behavioral therapy. Varenicline as a smoking cessation drug is better tolerated than other medications and it SMOKING CESSATION 5 seems to be more effective SMOKING CESSATION 6 References Çelik, Z. H., & Sevi, O. M. (2020). Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review. Current Approaches in Psychiatry / Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar, 12(1), 54–71. https://doiorg.udlap.idm.oclc.org/10.18863/pgy.534638 Ebbert, J., Little, M., Klesges, R., Bursac, Z., Johnson, K., Thomas, F., Vander Weg, M. (2017). Step Care treatment for smoking cessation. Published by Oxford University Press. Health Education Research. Vol 32, No.1. Pages 1-11 doi:10.1093/her/cyw051 Ghamri, R. (2018). Identification of the most effective pharmaceutical products for smoking cessation: A literature review. Journal of Substance Use.VOL. 23, NO. 6, 670–674 https://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2018.1489010 Kamile Marakoğlu, Nisa Çetin Kargın, Rahime Merve Uçar, & Muhammet Kızmaz. (2017). Evaluation of pharmacologic therapies accompanied by behavioural therapy on smoking cessation success: a prospective cohort study in Turkey. Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(3), 221–227. https://doiorg.udlap.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/24750573.2017.1342751 Patnode, C., Henderson, J., Thompson, J., Senger, C., Fortman, S., Whitlock, E. (2015). Behavioral Counseling and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for TobaccoCessationinAdults, Including PregnantWomen: A Review of Reviews for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. Vol. 163 No.8. Group Name: 4 Date: 9/17/2020 PICO Worksheet Original Revised Define your Question using PICO P Describe your patient, population or problem (age, sex, race, past medical history, etc.), the disease, or main topic of your question. Smoking population. I What intervention or action are you considering treatment, diagnostic test, etc. Is there a specific issue you’d like to investigate? Combination of Behavioral therapy and Pharmacology Treatment C Are you trying to compare or decide between two options - drugs, a drug and no medication or placebo, or two diagnostic tests? (Note: Your clinical question does not always need a specific comparison.) Pharmacology Medication alone. O M e t h o d o l o g y Which research method (quantitative or qualitative) should be used to answer the study question? Quantitative. If experimental, what research design should be used to compare the intervention group with the comparison (or control) group? o o o o o o o randomized controlled trial cohort study case controlled studies case reports systematic reviews meta analysis editorials/expert opinions What is the outcome you’d like to achieve? What are you trying to do for the patient? Relieve or eliminate the symptoms? Reduce the number of adverse events? Improve function or test scores? Smoking cessation. State your Question resulting from PICO: In smoking population, does behavioral therapy in combination with pharmacology medication would be better than Pharmacology medication alone to help people in Smoking cessation? List keywords from your PICO question that can be used for your search. Behavioral therapy, pharmacology medication, smoking cessation, smoking population. Use the databases page from the Library website for suggestions. List other criteria –gender, age, year of publication, or language to be used to limit your search. List the databases you plan to search: i.e., CINAHL. MRU Virtual library. Articles,text and magazines from 2015 to 2020 Rev. May 2020 MSN5300 KmR
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

So I also attached the Source I used which was part of the evidence table analysis.

Smoking Cessation

Poster #

Authors with Credentials
Institution/Affiliation

Model/Table/Chart/Graphic, etc.
Data Collection

Introduction/Problem/Purpose
❖ Tobacco is an addictive product that has made it
increasingly hard to break the nicotine abuse cycle
inherent in the current world. Smoke has negative
impacts to the body – such as lung cancer and the
susceptibility to respiratory diseases. Thus, breaking the
smoking cycle should deem imperative to save addicts’
lives. The research problem is that several therapies
exist, but they do not solve the underlying problem of
nicotine addiction.

❖ The purpose of the study is to determine the
effectiveness of the combination of Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy, nicotine replacement therapy, and medication to
reduce nicotine dependence.

Research Question
❖ What is the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)
in saving the lives of 34 million American smokers?

Setting/Study Sample
❖ The study is a clinical trial that entails a systematic
review of the literature. 20 studies that fit their
inclusion criteria are deployed.
❖ Participants from the studies selected are not using
any kind of medication at the moment. They are older
than 18 years and have not been diagnosed with any
psychological or physiological problem.

❖ The collection of data is via a sample that is deployed
from selected databases.
❖ The information is found worthwhile to be included within
the context of the study. The databases include
PsycARTICLE, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE.

Data Analysis
❖ Data analysis is performed in the context of the
study using a systematic review of the literature.
❖ It involves grouping studies according to themes
that have been developed by the research team.
❖ The objective is to determine the impacts of
nicotine replacement therapy and cognitive
development therapy as a critical aspect of
ensuring that patients can recuperate from
nicotine addiction.

Results
❖ Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has been used in
studies in various ways. The most common include
relapse prevention, coping skills, mood
management, and self-monitoring. Other use cases
include stimulus control, dealing with withdrawal
and dependence, and psychoeducation. The
frequency of sessions range from once a week to
around 52 weeks.

Metric

Session
duratio
n

Number
of
sessions

Number
of
therapis
ts

Session
frequen
cy

Number
of
membe
rs

Individu
al or
Group

Least
number
of times
deploye
d

20-30
mmi

4

1

Once a
week

1

Individu
al

Most
number
of times
deploye
d

1 hour

12

4

52
weeks

7-11

Group

Discussion/Implications
❖ The research makes comparisons between virtual cue exposure
therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, contingency
management procedures, active medication, nicotine
replacement therapy, and standard treatment.
❖ Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is best used in an individual
context with a high level of reliability and validity of the findings.
The implication of the study is to determine how best various
therapies can be combined with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
on an individual and group context to diminish nicotine
addiction.

Conclusions/Limitations
Tobacco dependence can be reduced by deploying Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy to reduce the burden of life. Nicotine replacement therapy and
medication can be used to help individuals recover from physiological
dependence. These should be combined with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to
become effective. Most of the studies used in the research are from the year
2000 and later. However, as a limitation, the study is missing critical
information on the number of therapists used in every session. The
information is outdated because it is written beyond ten years from now.
Information that would have been useful at that time is currently archaic.

Reference:
Çelik, Z. H., & Sevi, O. M. (2020). Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review. Current Approaches in Psychiatry / Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar, 12(1),
54–71. https://doi-org.udlap.idm.oclc.org/10.18863/pgy.534638.


Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar-Current Approaches in Psychiatry 2020; 12(1):54-71
doi: 10.18863/pgy.534638

Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Smoking
Cessation: A Systematic Review
Sigarayı Bırakma Tedavisinde Bilişsel Davranışçı Terapinin Etkililiği:
Sistematik Bir Gözden Geçirme
Zeynep Hilal Çelik 1

, Oya Mortan Sevi 1

Abstract
Smoking has become one of the most prevalent problems worldwide that causes significant illnesses even deaths. To specify, it
has been found that people suffer from cancers, heart diseases and strokes due to the use of tobacco. As soon as the investigations about this field progressed, researchers discovered the physiological and psychological dependence behind smoking. By
the reason of its hazardous consequences, a variety of treatment options are now available. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
is accepted as an effective method in treatment of smoking cessation. In this article, it is aimed to review the studies which
investigate the effect of CBT on smoking cessation. For this purpose, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLE databases has been
searched and studies that include CBT intervention are selected based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Specifically,
the studies in which the participants are not diagnosed with any psychological or physiological disorder, older than 18 years,
and does not use any kind of medication were included to the review. 20 studies fitting the including criteria are assessed in
detail. As a result, CBT-based treatments can be accepted as a successful method for smoking cessation, especially when
combined with medication and NRT.
Keywords: Smoking cessation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, treatment
Öz
Günümüzde sigara tüketimi neden olduğu ciddi hastalıklar hatta ölümler dolayısıyla dünya çapındaki önemli sorunlardan
biridir. Örneklendirmek gerekirse tütün ve tütün kullanımının kanser, kalp ve damar bozuklukları ve felç gibi hastalıklara sebep
olduğu bilimsel olarak kanıtlanmıştır. Bu konudaki çalışmaların artmasıyla araştırmacılar sigara tüketiminin altında yatan
fizyolojik ve psikolojik bağımlılığı da keşfetmiştir. Sigara tüketiminin tehlikeli sonuçlar doğuruyor oluşu sebebiyle birçok tedavi
seçeneği mevcuttur. Bilişsel Davranışçı Terapi (BDT), sigarayı bırakma tedavisinde etkinliği kanıtlanmış bir yöntemdir. Bu
sistematik gözden geçirme çalışmasında BDT’nin sigara bırakma tedavisinde etkisini inceleyen araştırmaların gözden geçirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla MEDLINE, PsycArticle and PsycINFO veritabanları taranmış ve belirlenen dahil etme/dışarıda
bırakma kriterlerine göre değerlendirme sırasında fiziksel veya psikiyatrik herhangi bir tanısı olmayan ve ilaç kullanmayan 18
yaşından büyük katılımcıların bulunduğu çalışmalar gözden geçirmeye dahil edilmiştir. Kiterleri karşılayan 20 çalışma detaylı
olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak BDT temelli müdahalelerin özellikle de ilaç ve nikotin replasman tedavisi ile birleştirildiğinde sigara bırakma tedavisinde başarılı bir seçenek olduğu görülmektedir.
Anahtar sözcükler: Sigarayı bırakma, bilişsel-davranışçı terapi, tedavi

1

Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Turkey
Oya Mortan Sevi, Bahçeşehir University, Department of Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey
oya.mortansevi@eas.bau.edu.tr

Received: 10.12.2018 | Accepted: 02.03.2019 | Published online: 15.10.2019
Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar - Current Approaches in Psychiatry

55

Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation

SMOKING has become a worldwide problem with serious consequences such as morbidity and mortality (Becoña et al. 2013). Specifically, smoking increases the risk for
heart diseases, cancer and stroke (American Cancer Society 2007, Lichtenstein & Glasgow 1992). Additionally, statistics have shown that due to smoking, 6 million people die
per year (WHO 2014). But in fact, it is the most preventable cause of morbidity and
mortality (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention 2008).
Smoking is classified under the tobacco use disorder in DSM-V (2013), and to get
the diagnosis at least two of the following impairments should be present within the last
12-months and lead to significant distress or impairment: taking the tobacco in large
amounts that is more than intended, persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down
or control the use, spending excessive times with smoking related activities, cravings or
strong desires to use tobacco, due to recurrent tobacco use failing at school, work or
home, despite having social or interpersonal problems because of it, continuing to use
tobacco, decreased social or occupational activities due to tobacco use, recurrent use of
tobacco in physically dangerous situations, continued tobacco use despite the knowledge
of its consequences, developing tolerance that is increasing the amount of use in order to
reach the desired effect, and experiencing withdrawal (American Psychiatric Association
2013).
In fact, due to nicotine in it, smoking is not only a psychological but also a pharmacological addiction that explains why nicotine addiction has the lowest treatment rates
among others (O’Brien & McLellan 1996). A chronic course of cigarette dependence
and treatment interventions is evident from the fact that only 1 out of 40 people successfully complete smoking cessation (Şengezer 2016). It has been found that nicotine
reaches the brain fastest among substances and travels through central and peripheral
nervous systems (Fiore et al 2008, Guimaraes et al. 2014). Effects of nicotine and its
travel make physiological changes in body, therefore body becomes addicted to it (American Lung Association 1995). Furthermore, as Dziegielewski and Eater (2000) emphasized, smokers may experience withdrawal symptoms and cravings due to physiological
component of nicotine addiction. Writers also mention that not every smoker are nicotine dependent, so, intervention should be considered accordingly.
Most common smoking cessation interventions are Nicotine Replacement Therapy
(NRT) such as nicotine patches, gums, nasal sprays; medications such as Bupropion,
Varenicline; and non-pharmacolog...


Anonymous
I use Studypool every time I need help studying, and it never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags