Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Addict Behav. 2019 Nov;98:106052. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106052. Epub 2019 Jul 15.
Understanding variability in smoking patterns may inform smoking cessation interventions. Retrospective reports of cigarettes smoked per day may be biased and typically do not provide temporal precision regarding when cigarettes are smoked. However, real-time, user-initiated tracking, such as logging each time a cigarette is smoked, can be burdensome over long time frames. In this study, adult, non-treatment seeking daily smokers (N = 22) used an electronic, smart lighter to light and timestamp cigarettes for 14 days. Participants reported number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) via a mobile device (daily diary) and retrospectively reported CPD at the end of the study using the Timeline Followback (TLFB). Self-reported lighter satisfaction and adherence varied with 68% of participants reporting that they liked using the lighter and participants reporting using the lighter for 92% of cigarettes smoked, on average. Lighter-estimated CPD did not differ from daily diary-estimated CPD, but was significantly lower than TLFB estimates. The lighter resulted in greater day-to-day variability relative to other methods and fewer rounded cigarette counts (digit bias) relative to the TLFB. The lighter appears to be feasible for capturing data on smoking patterns in daily smokers. Though false positive cigarettes are likely low, additional technologies that augment data captured from the lighter may be necessary to reduce false negatives (missed cigarettes) and alternative lighter designs may appeal more to certain smokers.
了解吸烟模式的可变性可能有助于戒烟干预。每天吸烟的香烟数量的回顾性报告可能存在偏差，并且通常不能提供关于何时吸烟的时间精度。然而，实时的、用户发起的跟踪，例如记录每次吸烟的时间，可以在长时间内带来负担。在这项研究中，成年、非治疗性每日吸烟者（N=22）使用电子智能打火机在 14 天内点燃和标记香烟。参与者通过移动设备（每日日记）报告每天吸烟的香烟数量（CPD），并在研究结束时使用时间线回溯法（TLFB）回顾性报告 CPD。自我报告的打火机满意度和依从性因 68%的参与者表示喜欢使用打火机而有所不同，参与者报告平均使用打火机点燃了他们所吸香烟的 92%。打火机估计的 CPD 与每日日记估计的 CPD 没有差异，但明显低于 TLFB 的估计值。与其他方法相比，打火机导致了更大的每日变化，并且与 TLFB 相比，更少出现圆形香烟计数（数字偏差）。打火机似乎可以有效地捕捉日常吸烟者吸烟模式的数据。虽然假阳性香烟的可能性较低，但可能需要额外的技术来增加从打火机捕获的数据，以减少假阴性（漏吸香烟），并且替代打火机设计可能更吸引某些吸烟者。
