Immediate antecedents of cigarette smoking: An analysis from ecological momentary assessment.

Abstract

It is clear that nicotine dependence is a driving motive behind tobacco use and cigarette smoking (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1988). Nevertheless, deeper understanding of motivation for smoking continues to propel theoretical speculation and empirical research. In particular, a notable feature of the nicotine-dependence or nicotine-regulation model is that it does not readily account for the situational variability in smoking. Researchers have focused on the immediate motives or triggers for smoking, in part because falling nicotine blood levels, per se, which would dictate regularly spaced smoking, do not seem to adequately explain variations in daily smoking rate and timing (Hatsukami, Morgan, Pickens, & Champagne, 1990;Pomerleau & Pomerleau, 1987). Some evidence suggests that smoking follows discemable pattems and is particularly likely to occur in certain situations or Saul Shiffman has undertaken research and consultancy for manufacturers of smoking cessation products, including nicotine replacement products and bupropion, and at the time this chapter was written was consulting exclusively for Glaxo-SmithKline. Saul Shiffman and Jean A. Paty are also founders of invivodata, inc., which provides electtonic diaries for clinical trials. This research was supported by Grant DA06084 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. We are grateful to David Abrams and Michael Sayette for providing usefiil comments on a draft of this chapter.

Survival Analysis with Time Varying Covariates Measured at Random Times by Design

“…Hazard ratios for craving, negative affect and restlessness were larger for smoking lapse than they were for ad libitum smoking. These results are consistent with findings from cruder methods of analysis, which have also concluded that negative affect is not associated with ad libitum smoking but is strongly associated with smoking lapse (Shiffman et al, 2002;Shiffman, 2005). Interpretation of this contrast is limited since mood ratings for lapse events were obtained retrospectively after the lapse, which could introduce bias.…”

“…Since questions focus on current psychological states, EMA avoids recall biases that are inherent in retrospective reports, and EMA avoids effects that are introduced in an artificial laboratory environment, increasing the ecological validity of the data (Shiffman and Stone, 1998). Shiffman et al (2002) and Rathbun et al (2007) investigated ad libitum (i.e. on-going, unrestricted) smoking behaviour before the quit time, finding that the momentary risk of smoking a cigarette is an increasing function of the smokers' restlessness.…”

DSM criteria for tobacco use disorder and tobacco withdrawal: a critique and proposed revisions for DSM‐5*

“…The craving items reproduced in Table 3 are not specific to withdrawal craving. This is because while deprivation typically increases craving [65], craving also occurs during ongoing smoking [62,66], and predicts smoking satisfaction [67,68] and future ad libitum smoking [66,69]. Withdrawal-related craving is targeted by the recommended withdrawal criterion (see Table 3, criterion 2).…”

Variations in tobacco control in National Dental PBRN practices: the role of patient and practice factors

“…As previously reported 19 , the exit cards were developed using principles of ecological momentary assessment. [20][21][22][23] EMA is frequently used in health behavior research to overcome traditional self-report assessment limitation. 21,23,24 EMA limits recall bias by being completed close in time to the exposure (ex: the dental visit) and helps with participation rates and diffusion of the intervention by being brief and unobtrusive.…”

“…For this analysis we used baseline, prerandomization, cross-sectional data on provider performance of tobacco control. This cross-sectional study linked the baseline patient exit card data and base- (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) year olds = 37.2%) compared with older (over 60 = 23.6%) and there was a significant trend by age group (37%, 32%, 27%, and 24% respectively for those less than 30, 30-44 years, 45-60 years, and over 60 years old). A similar trend by age group was seen for ADVISE (50%, 45%, 39%, and 35%) among the 3,155 tobacco users in the sample.…”