0, SD = 14.8) as compared LEE011? with those whose partner was not (M = 67.7, SD = 26.2; p < .0001). Dyadic efficacy was unrelated to gender, race, marital status, insurance status, and type of Quitline services used (data not shown). Predictive Validity In a longitudinal regression model, dyadic efficacy at baseline was positively associated with higher self-efficacy for quitting at follow-up, controlling for baseline level of self-efficacy, smoking-specific support, education, number of daily cigarettes smoked, and partner smoking status (B = 0.41, SE B = .19, �� = .18, p = .04). As shown in Table 4, higher dyadic efficacy at baseline was predictive of higher 7-day quit rates and marginally higher 30-day quit rates at follow-up in both our unadjusted models and our models adjusting for Quitline service use alone and smoking-specific support alone.
Dyadic efficacy was not predictive of 7-day quit rates when we adjusted for our full set of covariates (gender, education, self-efficacy, cigarette consumption, partner��s smoking status, smoking-specific support, and Quitline service use). Table 4. Logistic Regression Models: Dyadic Efficacya at Baseline as a Predictor of Quit Outcomes at 4-month Follow-Up (n = 204) Discussion We adapted and tested an existing dyadic efficacy instrument to assess smokers�� confidence in their abilities to work together as a team with their partners to quit smoking. The goal of this study was to explore a new teamwork construct that may enhance our understanding of the relationships between partner support and smoking cessation.
The resulting unidimensional dyadic efficacy scale was reliable, short, and easy to administer by telephone. Consistent with prior research demonstrating that teamwork in the context of illness management is adaptive (Revenson, Kayser, & Bodenmann, 2005), dyadic efficacy was associated Brefeldin_A with smoking-specific support from one��s partner, relationship satisfaction, and dyadic coping. Dyadic efficacy was also higher in those who endorsed stronger beliefs that problems arising in trying to quit smoking should be managed together as a couple rather than as individually. This finding highlights the potential importance of considering individuals�� preferences about teamwork in smoking cessation. Contrary to our expectations, dyadic efficacy was not associated with relationship length or smoking history variables, such as number of years smoked or smoking quantity. It may be that one��s confidence about teamwork in the context of smoking cessation is based more on the quality of the relationship with one��s partner rather than the length of the relationship or the nature of the cigarette dependence.