Sarah M. Scholl

Smoker reactivity to cues: effects on craving and on smoking behavior.

We assessed craving and smoking in response to smoking-relevant cues. Two hundred seven daily smokers viewed images related to 1 of 6 cue sets (cigarettes, positive and negative affect, alcohol, smoking prohibitions, and neutral cues) in separate sessions. Compared with neutral cues, cigarette cues significantly increased craving, and positive affect cues significantly decreased craving. When subjects were then allowed to smoke during continuing cue exposure, cues did not affect the likelihood of smoking or the amount smoked (number of cigarettes, number of puffs, puff time, or increased carbon monoxide). However, craving intensity predicted likelihood of smoking, latency to smoke, and amount smoked, with craving increases after cue exposure making significant independent contributions. Some craving effects were curvilinear, suggesting that they are subject to thresholds and might not be observed under some circumstances.

Smoking motives of daily and non-daily smokers: A profile analysis

BACKGROUND Non-daily or intermittent smoking is becoming common, but little is known about smoking patterns of intermittent smokers (ITS). This study assesses differences in the profile of smoking motives of non-daily, ITS and daily smokers (DS). METHODS Participants were 218 DS and 252 ITS (152 converted ITS [CITS], who previously smoked daily, and 80 native ITS [NITS] who did not), not currently quitting, recruited by advertisement. ITS were defined as smoking 4-27 days per month; DS as smoking daily, 5-30 cigarettes per day. Participants completed the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM), yielding scores for 13 different motives. The within-profile standard deviation expressed profile scatter (differentiation among motives), and profile shape was assessed on scores standardized for within-profile mean and standard deviation. RESULTS There was no difference between ITS and DS on profile scatter. ITS and DS differed in the shape of the standardized score profile, with DS scoring higher on Tolerance, Craving, Automaticity, Loss of Control and Behavioral Choice motives, and ITS scoring higher on Cue Exposure, Weight Control, and Positive Reinforcement motives. CITS did not differ from NITS in profile scatter or profile shape. CONCLUSION ITS differ from DS in the relative importance of motives, with ITS emphasizing motives associated with acute, situational smoking, and DS emphasizing dependence-related motives. Among ITS, history of daily smoking did not influence the profile of motives.

Cue reactivity in non-daily smokers: Effects on craving and on smoking behavior

RationaleNon-daily, or intermittent smokers (ITS), are increasingly prevalent. Their smoking may be more situational than that of daily smokers (DS), and thus is hypothesized to be more influenced by cues.ObjectivesTo assess ITS’ response to cues, and compare it to that of DS.MethodsSamples of 239 ITS and 207 DS (previously reported in Shiffman et al. 2012a) were studied in 2,586 laboratory cue-reactivity sessions. Craving (Questionnaire of Smoking Urges) and smoking (probability, latency, puff parameters, and carbon monoxide increases) in response to cues was assessed following exposure to neutral cues and cues related to smoking, alcohol, negative affect, positive affect, and smoking prohibitions. Mixed effects models, generalized estimating equations and random-effects survival analyses were used to assess response to cues and differences between DS and ITS.ResultsITS’ craving increased following exposure to smoking and alcohol cues and decreased following positive affect cues, but cues had little effect on smoking behaviors. Cue reactivity was similar in ITS and DS. Among ITS, craving intensity predicted smoking probability, latency, and intensity, and the effects on latency were stronger among ITS than DS.ConclusionsContrary to hypotheses, ITS were not more responsive to laboratory cues than DS. Results show that ITS do experience craving and craving increases that are then associated with smoking.

Self-affirmation moderates effects of unrealistic optimism and pessimism on reactions to tailored risk feedback

We examined whether self-affirmation would facilitate intentions to engage in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among individuals who were off-schedule for CRC screening and who were categorised as unrealistically optimistic, realistic or unrealistically pessimistic about their CRC risk. All participants received tailored risk feedback; in addition, one group received threatening social comparison information regarding their risk factors, a second received this information after a self-affirmation exercise and a third was a no-treatment control. When participants were unrealistically optimistic about their CRC risk (determined by comparing their perceived comparative risk to calculations from a risk algorithm), they expressed greater interest in screening if they were self-affirmed (relative to controls). Non-affirmed unrealistic optimists expressed lower interest relative to controls, suggesting that they were responding defensively. Realistic participants and unrealistically pessimistic participants who were self-affirmed expressed relatively less interest in CRC screening, suggesting that self-affirmation can be helpful or hurtful depending on the accuracy of ones risk perceptions.

Craving in intermittent and daily smokers during ad libitum smoking.

INTRODUCTION This study aimed to assess average and peak craving intensity among nondaily intermittent smokers (ITS) in smoking episodes and when not smoking compared to that of daily smokers (DS). METHODS Two hundred and twelve ITS and 194 DS monitored their smoking and craving for 3 weeks using Ecological Momentary Assessment methods. Craving was assessed (0-100 scale) when subjects lit a cigarette and at random times when not smoking; 48,469 observations were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS ITS experienced craving, including intense craving; their 95th percentile intensity averaged 77.7 ± 22.5 out of 100 (higher among DS: 89.1 ± 14.5). ITS reported lower craving than DS, both when smoking and when not smoking. In both groups, craving was less intense when not smoking (DS: 71.1 ± 20.7 vs. 59.83 ± 21.97; ITS: 59.91 ± 23.03 vs. 26.63 ± 19.87), but the difference was significantly greater among ITS. Among ITS, the probability of smoking rose continuously as craving increased over the full range of the scale. In contrast, among DS the probability of smoking rose until the midpoint of the scale, after which the relationship flattened. Findings were mostly similar for ITS with and without a history of past daily smoking. CONCLUSIONS ITS do experience craving, including intense craving. The relationship between craving and smoking is stronger among ITS because DS experience moderate craving even between cigarettes. In contrast, ITS appear to experience craving in limited situations associated with smoking, suggesting that their craving and smoking may be driven by transient cues rather than endogenous needs.

Nondaily Smokers’ Changes in Cigarette Consumption With Very Low-Nicotine-Content Cigarettes: A Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial

Importance The US Food and Drug Administration is considering limiting cigarettes to very low nicotine levels. Cigarette consumption of nondaily intermittent smokers (ITS), who compose one-third of US adult smokers, could feasibly increase or could be unaffected if their smoking is not motivated by nicotine seeking. Objective To compare cigarette consumption in ITS receiving very low-nicotine-content cigarettes (VLNCCs) or identical normal-nicotine-content cigarettes (NNCCs). Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted from June 2015 to July 2017 at a single US site. Volunteer ITS not planning to quit were recruited via media. Overall, 297 individuals enrolled, and 238 were randomized. Analyses were intent-to-treat. Interventions After a 2-week baseline of smoking their own brand of cigarettes provided gratis, ITS were randomized to VLNCCs or NNCCs for 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The number of cigarettes per day (CPD) was assessed by real-time reporting, timeline follow-back reports, and cigarette butt counts. The primary outcome was change in CPD from baseline to weeks 9 to 10 of intervention, adjusting for baseline CPD. Results The mean (SD) age of the 238 randomized participants was 37.9 (13.8) years. Of 238 participants, 108 (45%) were men. At baseline, the mean (SD) CPD was 3.1 (2.9). In intent-to-treat analyses using multiple imputation to address missing data, the VLNCC group had a mean decrease of 1.6 CPD (95% CI, 1.1-2.0; 51% of baseline) vs 0.05 decrease with NNCCs (95% CI, −0.5 to 0.4; 2% of baseline). Treatment group differences were not materially moderated by sex, race/ethnicity, or history of daily smoking. Cheating with conventional cigarettes, inferred from cotinine assays, was more common in the VLNCC group (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.54-5.66), but sensitivity analyses showed significant VLNCC effects among the compliant participants as well. In longitudinal analysis of CPD over time with random intercept and slope, the VLNCC and NNCC groups differed significantly in both linear (−0.15; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.08; P < .001) and quadratic (0.0026; 95% CI, 0.0010-0.0042; P = .002) trends: CPD dropped by 43.8% in the VLNCC group over 4 weeks, then leveled off thereafter. Abstinence (intent-to-treat, biochemically verified) in weeks 9 to 10 postrandomization did not differ significantly by treatment group (VLNCC, 10.2% vs NNNC, 5.0%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance Switching to VLNCCs caused substantial smoking reduction among ITS but did not significantly increase abstinence. Response to a VLNCC intervention suggests that nicotine-seeking motivates ITS’ smoking. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02228824

Three Approaches to Quantifying Cigarette Consumption: Data From Nondaily Smokers.

Quantifying cigarette consumption is fundamental to smoking research. We examine the correspondence among 3 methods of capturing cigarette consumption in nondaily smokers. In the study, 232 nondaily smokers recorded cigarette consumption over 2 weeks of ad libitum smoking (total = 3,303 days) using 3 methods: (a) interactive voice response (IVR; calling an automated telephone line when they smoked), (b) butts (storing and returning the butts of cigarettes smoked), and (c) time-line follow-back (TLFB; retrospectively reporting daily consumption). Analyses examined relationships among the measures (cigarettes per day and proportion of days abstinent) for the average over 2 weeks and for each day. In averaged data, the methods were highly correlated for both quantity smoked and percentage of abstinent days (rs > .95); the average was very reliable (&agr; = .99). All 3 methods showed similar, very strong relationships to urinary cotinine (rs > .70). Estimates of the percentage of days abstinent differed modestly but significantly by method (butts [32%] > TLFB [31%] > IVR [28%]). For individual days, there was no significant difference in cigarettes per day by method, the 3 methods correlated highly (rs = .75–.96), and agreement on abstinence was very high (≥90%; &kgr;s ≥ .95). In nondaily smokers reporting smoking by IVR, butts, and TLFB, the resulting estimates of cigarette consumption and abstinence are highly concordant and equivalent. The composite (average) of the 3 methods yields a highly reliable estimate of cigarette-smoking behavior in this population. In contrast to past studies, this study suggests these 3 methods are equivalent and implies that any 1 can be used by nondaily smokers.

Interaction between ethnicity and smoker type with dependence: A comparison of daily and intermittent African American and Caucasian smokers.

Ethnic differences in smoking patterns and dependence have been observed between Caucasian and African American smokers: African Americans who smoke are more likely to be intermittent smokers (ITS), and daily smokers (DS) consume fewer cigarettes yet report more dependence. Participants’ (N = 482, 67% Caucasian, 54% ITS) dependence was assessed by primary and secondary dependence subscales of the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives, the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale, the Hooked on Nicotine Checklist, the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence, and time to first cigarette after waking. We tested associations with dependence for ethnicity, smoker type, and an Ethnicity × Smoker Type interaction, using multivariable linear regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and education. Additional models adjusted for cigarettes per day and history of daily smoking. There was a significant interaction between ethnicity and smoker type for 5 of 6 measures of dependence (each scale assessed separately), such that African American ITS reported more dependence than Caucasian ITS, whereas dependence did not differ by ethnicity among DS. African American ITS smoked more cigarettes per day and were more likely to have a history of daily smoking than Caucasian ITS; after further adjustments for these differences, there were no significant interactions of ethnicity and smoker type for any measure. Among DS, dependence did not differ by race. African American ITS were more dependent than Caucasian ITS; this difference was explained by higher cigarette consumption and a higher proportion converted from DS to ITS among African Americans versus Caucasians.