Trial reportPreventive medicine2022
Leveraging the cigarette purchase task to understand relationships between cumulative vulnerabilities, the relative reinforcing effects of smoking, and response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes.
Trial report in Preventive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cigarette smoking and cognitive task performance: Experimental effects of very-low nicotine-content cigarettes.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2024Trial
- Moral injury among women military veterans and demand for cigarettes: A behavioral economic investigation using a hypothetical purchase task.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Relating individual differences in the reinforcing value of smoking and dependence severity to nicotine exposure levels in vulnerable populations.Preventive medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We examined if the relative-reinforcing effects of smoking increase with greater cumulative vulnerability and whether cumulative vulnerability moderates response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Participants were 775 adults from randomized clinical trials evaluating research cigarettes differing in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg/g). Participants were categorized as having low (0-1), moderate (2-3), or high (≥4) cumulative vulnerability. Vulnerabilities included rural residence, opioid use disorder, affective disorder, low educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, and physical disability. We used the cigarette purchase task (CPT) to assess the relative-reinforcing effects of participants' usual-brand cigarettes at baseline and study cigarettes during the 12-week trial. The CPT is a behavioral-economic task wherein participants estimate likely smoking (demand) over 24 h under escalating cigarette price. Demand is characterized by two factors: Amplitude (demand volume at zero/minimal price) and Persistence (demand sensitivity to price). Greater cumulative vulnerability was associated with greater demand Amplitude (F[2709] = 16.04,p < .0001) and Persistence (F[2709] = 8.35,p = .0003) for usual-brand cigarettes. Demand Amplitude for study cigarettes increased with increasing cumulative vulnerability (F[2619] = 19.59, p < .001) and decreased with decreasing nicotine content ([4879] = 5.45, p < .001). The only evidence of moderation was on demand Persistence (F[8867] = 2.00,p = .04), with larger reductions at the 0.4 mg/g compared to 15.8 mg/g doses among participants with low compared to moderate or high cumulative vulnerability. The relative-reinforcing effects of smoking clearly increase with greater cumulative vulnerability. Reducing nicotine content would likely reduce demand Amplitude across cumulative-vulnerability levels but reductions in demand Persistence may be more limited among those with greater cumulative vulnerability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.