Examining moment to moment affective determinants of smoking rate following a quit attempt among homeless daily smokers

Savoy, Elaine J.; Businelle, Michael S.; Nguyen, Nga; Chen, Tzu-An; Neighbors, Clayton; Norton, Peter J.; Taing, Matthew; Reitzel, Lorraine R.

doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106788

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Theories also may need to incorporate nuance by employing more naturalistic stressors. Research examining how momentary perceived stress and explicit stressors affect drug use has begun to use in situ methods to monitor participants’ responses to real-world stressors and any subsequent drug use (for recent, well-powered examples, see Cambron et al, 2019, 2020; Potter et al, 2021; Savoy et al, 2021; Schultz et al, 2022). These stressors have higher ecological validity than common laboratory stressors (e.g., electric shock, aversive pictures).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central stress response among deprived and continuing marijuana users and nonusers.

Fronk¹,

Hefner²,

Gloria³

et al. 2022

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We examined central nervous system [CNS] stress responses among deprived and continuing heavy marijuana users and nonusers. Method: Participants (N = 210; 46.7% female; M age = 21.99; 91.4% White, 94.3% Non-Hispanic) were heavy marijuana users (N = 134) and nonusers (N = 76). Heavy users were randomly assigned to a 3-day marijuana deprivation condition (N = 68) or to continue using regularly (N = 66). Participants completed two threat-of-shock stressor tasks that manipulated stressor predictability by varying shock probability or timing. We measured central stress responses via startle potentiation (stressor conditions minus matched no-stressor condition). We examined two group contrasts (heavy use: all heavy users vs. nonusers; deprivation: deprived vs. continuing heavy users) on startle potentiation overall and moderated by stressor predictability (unpredictable vs. predictable). Results: Deprivation did not affect startle potentiation overall (timing task: p = .184; probability task: p = .328) or differently by stressor predictability (timing task: p = .147; probability task: p = .678). Heavy use did not affect startle potentiation overall (timing task: p = .213; probability task: p = .843) or differently by stressor predictability (timing task: p = .655; probability task: p = .273). Posthoc analyses showed mixed evidence of general startle reactivity × deprivation interaction on startle potentiation overall (timing task: p = .019; probability task: p = .056) and differently by stressor predictability (probability task: p = .024; timing task: p = .364). Conclusions: A history of marijuana use or acute deprivation did not alter central stress responses despite prominent theoretical expectations. This study adds to growing research on central stress responses in individuals with a history of drug use and begins to parse moderating roles of individual differences and stressor characteristics. Public Health Significance StatementIndividuals with a history of drug use have been theorized to display atypical stress responses. This study does not find evidence of altered CNS stress responses when comparing heavy marijuana users to nonusers or when comparing continuing marijuana users to acutely deprived marijuana users. Expanding research to include naturalistic stressors, more stressor characteristics, and multisystemic responses may improve understanding of stress mechanisms in substance use disorders and offer paths forward for theory refinement and treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central stress response among deprived and continuing marijuana users and nonusers.

Fronk¹,

Hefner²,

Gloria³

et al. 2022

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence based on a variety of methods supports the concept that stress-induced negative affect is positively associated with smoking 13 – 18 . For example, the acute stress of a terrorist attack in New York City increased smoking rates among residents 19 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Dynamic models of stress-smoking responses based on high-frequency sensor data

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-reports indicate that stress increases the risk for smoking; however, intensive data from sensors can provide a more nuanced understanding of stress in the moments leading up to and following smoking events. Identifying personalized dynamical models of stress-smoking responses can improve characterizations of smoking responses following stress, but techniques used to identify these models require intensive longitudinal data. This study leveraged advances in wearable sensing technology and digital markers of stress and smoking to identify person-specific models of stress and smoking system dynamics by considering stress immediately before, during, and after smoking events. Adult smokers (n = 45) wore the AutoSense chestband (respiration-inductive plethysmograph, electrocardiogram, accelerometer) with MotionSense (accelerometers, gyroscopes) on each wrist for three days prior to a quit attempt. The odds of minute-level smoking events were regressed on minute-level stress probabilities to identify person-specific dynamic models of smoking responses to stress. Simulated pulse responses to a continuous stress episode revealed a consistent pattern of increased odds of smoking either shortly after the beginning of the simulated stress episode or with a delay, for all participants. This pattern is followed by a dramatic reduction in the probability of smoking thereafter, for about half of the participants (49%). Sensor-detected stress probabilities indicate a vulnerability for smoking that may be used as a tailoring variable for just-in-time interventions to support quit attempts.

show abstract

“…Barriers to smoking cessation specifically in AA PEH may include low self-efficacy ( Pinsker et al, 2018 ), nicotine dependence, homelessness, and fatalism ( Vijayaraghavan et al, 2018 ). Several studies have measured quit attempts among PEH ( Akande et al, 2020 ; Businelle et al, 2014 ; Savoy et al, 2021 ), but there is a dearth of knowledge regarding the influence of discrimination and mental health on readiness to quit cigarette smoking among PEH, specifically among AA PEH. The aims of this paper are (a) to explore the association between discrimination and readiness to quit cigarette smoking among AA PEH and (b) analyze whether symptoms of depression or anxiety mediate this association.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrimination, Mental Health, and Readiness to Quit Smoking

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a cross-sectional study, examining the mediation effects of depression and anxiety on the association between discrimination and readiness to quit cigarette smoking among African American adult cigarette smokers experiencing homelessness. Using a convenience sample, participants were recruited from a homeless shelter in Southern California. Scores of discrimination, depressive, and anxiety symptoms, and readiness to quit smoking were analyzed using linear regression modeling. We enrolled 100 participants; 58 participants were male. In the final model, discrimination had no association with readiness to quit ( b = 0.02; 95% CI [−0.04, 0.08]; p = 0.47). The indirect effects of depression ( b = 0.04, [0.01, 0.07]; p = 0.02) and anxiety ( b = 0.03; [0.01, 0.05]; p = 0.04) reached statistical significance; the direct effects of depression ( b = −0.01; [−0.09, 0.04]; p = 0.70) and anxiety ( b = −0.00; [−0.09, 0.06]; p = 0.86) did not. Future studies should explore these associations to enhance smoking cessation programs for this population.

show abstract

Examining moment to moment affective determinants of smoking rate following a quit attempt among homeless daily smokers

Cited by 4 publications

References 47 publications

Central stress response among deprived and continuing marijuana users and nonusers.

Central stress response among deprived and continuing marijuana users and nonusers.

Dynamic models of stress-smoking responses based on high-frequency sensor data

Discrimination, Mental Health, and Readiness to Quit Smoking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About