Addiction Recovery Research Center, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Roanoke, VA.
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Sep 4;20(10):1278-1282. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntx164.
The majority of cigarettes sold in the United States and abroad feature filter ventilation holes designed to dilute mainstream smoke. Although initially intended to produce a safer cigarette, data instead suggest that filter ventilation increases total harm from smoking. In the present study, we examined the effects of blocking ventilation holes on behavioral economic demand for cigarettes (i.e., consumption as a function of price).
In a within-subjects design, regular smokers (N = 15) of ventilated cigarettes sampled vent-blocked cigarettes for 3 days. Subsequently, they completed three sessions in which they used an experimental income to purchase vent-blocked and/or control cigarettes across a range of prices. Participants also completed the Drug Effects/Liking Scale.
In sessions in which only one cigarette type was available, demand measures were undifferentiated between cigarette types. However, in sessions in which both cigarettes were available at equivalent prices, significantly greater preference for ventilated control cigarettes emerged in demand measures. Regardless of session type, participants also rated vent-blocked cigarettes more poorly in the Drug Effects/Liking Scale (more bad effects, fewer good effects, and less liking, desire, and less likely to use again).
Removing filter ventilation reduced cigarette abuse liability, as measured by behavioral economic demand and the Drug Effects/Liking Scale. However, reduced demand was only apparent when both cigarette types were concurrently available. This selective effect suggests that regulatory action banning filter ventilation would only reduce cigarette consumption when effective substitutes for vent-blocked cigarettes are available.
This preliminary study indicates that regulatory action designed to ban or restrict cigarette filter ventilation may decrease cigarette abuse liability as measured by both behavioral economic demand and self-report measures. However, effects of removing filter ventilation on demand measures appear to depend on concurrent availability of alternative, preferred cigarette types.
美国和国外销售的大多数香烟都有过滤通风孔，旨在稀释主流烟雾。尽管最初的目的是生产更安全的香烟，但数据表明，过滤通风会增加吸烟的总危害。在本研究中，我们研究了堵塞通风孔对香烟行为经济需求的影响（即，作为价格函数的消费）。
在一个被试内设计中，通风香烟的习惯性吸烟者（N=15）连续 3 天吸食被堵塞通风孔的香烟。随后，他们完成了三个疗程，他们使用实验收入购买了一系列价格的被堵塞通风孔和/或控制香烟。参与者还完成了药物效果/喜好量表。
在只提供一种香烟类型的疗程中，需求测量在香烟类型之间没有区别。然而，在两种香烟在同等价格下都可获得的疗程中，需求测量中对通风控制香烟的偏好显著增加。无论疗程类型如何，参与者在药物效果/喜好量表中也对堵塞通风孔的香烟评价较差（更多不良效果，更少良好效果，更少喜欢、欲望和不太可能再次使用）。
去除过滤通风孔降低了吸烟的滥用倾向，如通过行为经济学需求和药物效果/喜好量表来衡量。然而，当两种香烟同时存在时，需求的减少才变得明显。这种选择性效应表明，禁止过滤通风的监管行动只有在有效替代品用于堵塞通风孔的香烟时才会减少香烟的消费。
这项初步研究表明，旨在禁止或限制香烟过滤通风的监管行动可能会降低通过行为经济学需求和自我报告措施来衡量的吸烟滥用倾向。然而，去除过滤通风孔对需求测量的影响似乎取决于替代的、偏好的香烟类型的同时可用性。
