Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA; Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Addict Behav. 2018 Mar;78:94-100. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.023. Epub 2017 Oct 28.
Waterpipe (WP) tobacco smoking delivers many of the same harmful toxicants as cigarette smoking and is on the rise in the US. This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a brief personalized feedback intervention in affecting changes in WP smoking among current WP smokers.
Participants (N=109) were recruited as they entered WP lounges and completed a questionnaire and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) testing before entering the WP lounge. Participants were cluster-randomized to assessment-only control (AOC) or intervention conditions. The intervention condition received health risk information and personalized feedback on pre- and post-WP session eCO levels. Participants completed a survey at the end of the WP session and at 3-month follow-up.
Compared to control, the intervention was effective in increasing knowledge of WP-related harms, correcting risk perceptions, increasing importance of quitting WP smoking, and increasing confidence in ability to quit WP smoking at post-WP session (p<0.05). Differences were maintained for knowledge of WP-related harms, risk perceptions, and commitment to quitting WP at 3-month follow-up; however, no significant difference (p>0.05) was observed in WP smoking (i.e., days smoked and number of WPs smoked) at 3-month follow-up between the intervention (M=3.97days, SD=9.83; M=6.45 bowls, SD=19.60) and control conditions (M=3.32days, SD=5.24; M=3.49 bowls, SD=5.10).
The current research supports the use of personalized feedback as a useful intervention method to increase commitment to quit WP, but suggests more intensive interventions may be necessary to achieve WP cessation.
水烟（WP）吸烟会带来与吸烟相同的许多有害有毒物质，而且在美国呈上升趋势。本研究评估了简短的个性化反馈干预措施在影响当前 WP 吸烟者 WP 吸烟行为改变方面的可行性和效果。
参与者（N=109）在进入 WP 休息室时被招募，并在进入 WP 休息室之前完成了一份问卷和呼出的一氧化碳（eCO）测试。参与者被聚类随机分配到评估仅对照组（AOC）或干预组。干预组收到健康风险信息和关于 WP 会前和会后 eCO 水平的个性化反馈。参与者在 WP 会议结束时和 3 个月随访时完成了一项调查。
与对照组相比，干预组在 WP 相关危害知识、纠正风险认知、增加戒烟 WP 吸烟的重要性以及增加戒烟 WP 吸烟能力的信心方面更有效，WP 会议后（p<0.05）。在 WP 会议后和 3 个月随访时，WP 相关危害知识、风险认知和戒烟承诺方面的差异仍然存在；然而，在 3 个月随访时，WP 吸烟（即吸烟天数和 WP 吸烟次数）在干预组（M=3.97 天，SD=9.83；M=6.45 碗，SD=19.60）和对照组（M=3.32 天，SD=5.24；M=3.49 碗，SD=5.10）之间没有显著差异（p>0.05）。
目前的研究支持使用个性化反馈作为一种有用的干预方法来增加戒烟 WP 的承诺，但表明可能需要更密集的干预措施才能实现 WP 戒烟。
