Article

Determinants of Tobacco Use and Renaming the FTND to the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence

Fagerström Consulting, Jordkull 3670, 26878 Kagerod, Sweden.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research (Impact Factor: 2.81). 01/2012; 14(1):75-8. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntr137
Source: PubMed
Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Karl Fagerström, Dec 11, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
111 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been reported to reduce tobacco craving and withdrawal; however, the mechanisms underlying these effects have not been elucidated. This study examined the contributions of nicotine stimulus and response expectancies to responses to nicotine-free e-cigarettes in 21 e-cigarette naïve smokers (12 male). Participants completed two randomized experimental sessions in which they administered a nicotine-free e-cigarette. During one session they were informed the e-cigarette contained nicotine and during the other session they were informed that the e-cigarette was nicotine-free. Participants completed subjective assessments before and immediately after sampling ten puffs from the e-cigarette and were then invited to earn additional puffs using a computerized progressive ratio task. Prior to their enrolment in the study, participants provided an estimate of the relative importance of the nicotine content of e-cigarettes for craving relief. Instructions that the e-cigarette contained nicotine were found to reduce both intention to smoke (p = 0.017) and withdrawal-related (p = 0.018) craving, regardless of a-priori reported beliefs regarding the relative importance of nicotine. Nicotine content instructions were also found to be associated with a shorter latency to self-administration (p = 0.005); however, a Sex x Instructions x Response Expectancy interaction (p = 0.008) revealed that this effect was specific to women who had strong a-priori nicotine content craving relief expectations. Neither nicotine content instructions nor response expectancies impacted number of puffs self-administered. Findings suggest that nicotine content expectations contribute to smokers’ responses to e-cigarettes, and that a-priori beliefs about nicotine effects may be especially important in women.
    Addictive Behaviors 09/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.09.013 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    L Encéphale 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.encep.2014.07.003 · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore the differential effect of cessation interventions (behavioral support sessions with [BSS+] and without [BSS] bupropion) between hookah and cigarette smokers. We reanalyzed the data from a major cluster-randomized controlled trial, ASSIST (Action to Stop Smoking In Suspected Tuberculosis), which consisted of 3 conditions: (a) behavioral support sessions (BSS), (b) behavioral support sessions plus 7 weeks of bupropion therapy (BSS+), and (c) controls receiving usual care. The trial originally recruited 1,955 adult smokers with suspected tuberculosis from 33 health centers in Jhang and Sargodha districts of Pakistan, between 2010 and 2011. The primary endpoint was continuous 6-month smoking abstinence, determined by carbon monoxide levels. Subgroup-specific relative risks (RRs) of smoking abstinence were computed and tested for differential intervention effect using log binomial regression (generalized linear model) between 3 subgroups (cigarette-only: 1,255; mixed: 485; and hookah-only: 215). The test result for homogeneity of intervention effects between the smoking forms was statistically significant (p-value for BSS+: .04 and that for BSS: .02). Compared to the control, both interventions appeared to be effective among hookah smokers (RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3-4.7 and RR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.3-3.8, respectively) but to a lesser extent than among cigarette smokers (RR: 6.6; 95% CI: 4.6-9.6 and RR: 5.8; 95% CI: 4.0-8.5), respectively. The differential intervention effects on hookah and cigarette smokers were seen (a) because the behavioral support intervention was designed primarily for cigarette smokers; or (b) because of differences in demographic characteristics, behavioral, and sociocultural determinants; or (b) because of differences in nicotine dependency levels between the 2 groups.
    Nicotine & Tobacco Research 12/2013; 16(6). DOI:10.1093/ntr/ntt211 · 2.81 Impact Factor