Search

Introduction: Cigarette smoking accounts for >30% of the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy. Flavored restrictions claim to promote equity; however, no previous studies have compared the effect of cigarette and e-cigarette flavor restrictions among individuals who smoke with lower and higher socioeconomic status (SES). Aims and Methods: In a between-group within-subject design, individuals with lower (n = 155) and higher (n = 125) SES completed hypothetical purchasing trials in the experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM). Conditions were presented in a 2 × 2 factorial design (cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted and e-cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted) with increasing cigarette prices across trials. Results: Results show (1) SES differences in cigarette, e-cigarette, and NRT purchases under unrestricted policies, with lower SES showing higher cigarette demand and lower e-cigarette and NRT substitution than higher SES, (2) cigarette restrictions decreased cigarette and increased NRT purchases among lower SES, but no significant changes among higher SES, (3) decreased SES differences in cigarette demand under cigarette restrictions, but persistence under e-cigarette restrictions or their combination, (4) persistence of SES differences in e-cigarette purchases when all restrictions were enforced, and (5) waning of SES differences in NRT purchasing under all restrictions. Conclusions: Flavor restrictions differentially affected individuals based on SES. Within-group comparisons demonstrated restrictions significantly impacted lower SES, but not higher SES. Between-group comparisons showed SES differences in cigarette purchasing decreased under cigarette restrictions, but persisted under e-cigarette-restrictions or their combination. Additionally, SES differences in NRT substitution decreased under flavor restrictions. These findings highlight the utility of the ETM to investigate SES disparities. Implications: With increasing trends of socioeconomic

Relapse to smoking continues to be among the most urgent global health concerns. Novel, accessible, and minimally invasive treatments to aid in smoking cessation are likely to improve the reach and efficacy of smoking cessation treatment. Encouraging prospection by decreasing delay discounting (DD) is a new therapeutic target in the treatment of smoking cessation. Two early-stage interventions, delivered remotely and intended to increase prospection, decrease DD and promote cessation are Episodic Future Thinking (EFT) and Future Thinking Priming (FTP). EFT and FTP have demonstrated at least modest reductions in delay discounting, but understanding whether these interventions are internally valid (i.e., are accomplishing the stated intention) is key. This study examined the internal validity of EFT and FTP. Participants (n = 20) seeking to quit smoking were randomly assigned to active or control conditions of EFT and FTP. Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC2015) was used to examine the language participants used while engaged in the tasks. Results revealed significant differences in the language participants used in the active and control conditions. Women employed more words than men, but no other demographic differences were found in language. The active conditions for both tasks showed a greater emphasis on future orientation. Risk-avoidance was significantly higher in the active vs. control condition for EFT. Remote delivery of both EFT and FTP was valid and feasible as participants adhered to instructions in the remote prompts, and trends in DD were in the expected directions.

Background: Tobacco use remains one of the world’s greatest preventable causes of death and disease. While most smokers want to quit, few are successful, highlighting a need for novel therapeutic approaches to support cessation efforts. Lower delay discounting (DD) rates are associated with increased smoking cessation success. Future thinking priming (FTP) reliably reduces DD rates in large populations. Smokers consistently discount more than nonsmokers, and evidence suggests that changes in DD rates are rate dependent. This study examined whether smoking status moderated the effect of FTP on DD rates and, if so, if the moderation effect could be attributed to differences in baseline rates of DD. Methods: Moderation analysis was conducted to determine whether the effect of FTP, versus neutral priming (NP), on DD differed among smokers and nonsmokers. Results: Smoking status moderated the effect of condition (FTP vs. NP) on post-intervention DD scores (b = −0.2919, p = 0.0124) and DD change scores (b = −0.2975, p = 0.0130). There was no evidence of rate dependence effects in the current sample. Conclusions: FTP had a greater effect on decreasing DD rates among smokers than nonsmokers. FTP is effective and simple to administer, which makes it a promising therapeutic approach for aiding smoking cessation.

Background: Tobacco use remains one of the world’s greatest preventable causes of death and disease. While most smokers want to quit, few are successful, highlighting a need for novel therapeutic approaches to support cessation efforts. Lower delay discounting (DD) rates are associated with increased smoking cessation success. Future thinking priming (FTP) reliably reduces DD rates in large populations. Smokers consistently discount more than nonsmokers, and evidence suggests that changes in DD rates are rate dependent. This study examined whether smoking status moderated the effect of FTP on DD rates and, if so, if the moderation effect could be attributed to differences in baseline rates of DD. Methods: Moderation analysis was conducted to determine whether the effect of FTP, versus neutral priming (NP), on DD differed among smokers and nonsmokers. Results: Smoking status moderated the effect of condition (FTP vs. NP) on post-intervention DD scores (b = −0.2919, p = 0.0124) and DD change scores (b = −0.2975, p = 0.0130). There was no evidence of rate dependence effects in the current sample. Conclusions: FTP had a greater effect on decreasing DD rates among smokers than nonsmokers. FTP is effective and simple to administer, which makes it a promising therapeutic approach for aiding smoking cessation.

Objective: Delay discounting, the propensity to devalue delayed rewards, has robust predictive validity for multiple health behaviors and is a new therapeutic target for health behavior change. Priming can influence behaviors in a predictable manner. We aimed to use the Future Thinking Priming task, administered remotely, to reliably decrease delay discounting rates. Methods: In this pre-post randomized control group design, participants completed multiple delay discounting measures at baseline; then, 2 weeks later, they were randomized to Future Thinking Priming or Neutral Priming conditions. We hypothesized that Future Thinking Priming would significantly decrease delay discounting rates accounting for baseline delay discounting rates and time in repeated measures analyses. Results: Participants randomized to Future Thinking Priming (N = 783) demonstrated significantly lower delay discounting rates post-intervention than those randomized to Neutral Priming (N = 747) on multiple delay discounting measures and magnitudes. Conclusions: A single administration of Future Thinking Priming produces statistically reliable reductions in delay discounting rates. The task is brief, can be administered remotely, and is highly scalable. If found to support behavior change, the task might be disseminated broadly to enhance evidence-based behavior change interventions. Future research must determine optimal exposure patterns to support durable health behavior change.

A significant proportion of individuals have experienced one or more traumatic event, and trauma exposure has been associated with increased smoking and greater difficulty quitting, yet the relationship between traumatic event exposure and smoking cessation outcomes has not been widely studied. Similarly, while the experience of stressful life events is nearly universal, and research suggests their effects may produce psychopathological outcomes similar to those of traumatic events, research on the relationship between stressful life event exposure and smoking cessation is sparse. The current study sought to investigate the effects of trauma and stress on tobacco dependence treatment outcomes in lower SES individuals, as well as whether trauma or stress moderated the effects of an adapted smoking cessation intervention. There were several notable findings with implications for future research, including a significant positive association between traumatic event exposure and cigarettes smoked at baseline, a significant relationship between stressful life event exposure and nicotine dependence, and a marginally significant association between stressful life event exposure and abstinence at week 15. However, we did not find significant evidence that either traumatic or stressful event exposure was associated with greater smoking, greater nicotine dependence, or worse tobacco cessation outcomes after smoking cessation treatment. Nor did we find that, in general, traumatic or stressful life event exposure significantly moderated the effects of the adapted smoking cessation treatment. The failure to identify a significant relationship between prior traumatic event or stressful life event exposure and treatment outcomes may indicate that the effects were too small to reliably detect or that such stressors do not effect response to smoking cessation treatment. Given the modest power of the current investigation, it is not possible to distinguish between these two possibilit