It is possible selleck that the concept of working together as a team is very different in a sample in which motivation and efficacy to quit are more variable. Indeed, smokers in our study had high levels of dyadic efficacy at baseline, and it may be that this reflects a unique group of couples with better than average relationships. In addition, we collected data from only one partner in dyads, preventing us from understanding the support providers�� perspectives. An additional limitation is that our response rates at follow-up were low, limiting our ability to detect potential relationships between dyadic efficacy and quit outcomes over time. In addition, important aspects of relationship functioning were not assessed in this study.

In particular, we did not assess negative support, which may be relevant to dyadic efficacy and quit outcomes particularly in couples for whom teamwork is maladaptive. Finally, we did not assess relationship functioning at follow-up, and it is possible that changes in relationships over the course of the study could impact dyadic efficacy or smoking cessation outcomes. Given our preliminary findings, future studies should examine dyadic efficacy over time to evaluate its properties and stability over the quit attempt process. In addition, future studies should examine perceptions of dyadic efficacy in both partners in couples and assess potential relationships between dyadic efficacy and other outcomes important to quitting. Also, because research shows that negative support can undermine smoking cessation efforts in the context of smoking cessation (e.

g., Cohen & Lichtenstein, 1990), future research should examine how dyadic efficacy relates to specific support and coping behaviors across the process of trying to quit. With further testing, this dyadic efficacy instrument could be useful to further our understanding of how partners work together to cope with the challenges of quitting smoking. For example, just as prior smoking cessation interventions have been informed by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) by building smokers�� self-efficacy and skills using goal-setting, modeling, and reinforcement to achieve cessation goals, similar interventions could be developed to improve dyadic efficacy for smoking cessation in couples. For example, one couple��s intervention based on family systems principles (Shoham, Rohrbaugh, Trost, & Muramoto, 2006) was found to be feasible and showed promising abstinence rates of 50% at 6 months for program participants. Ultimately, research in Dacomitinib the area of teamwork may inform the development of interventions to improve outcomes in partnered smokers. Funding Dr.