INTRODUCTION:Blacks who smoke have increased tobacco-related health risks. Cessation decreases the likelihood of many health problems. Smoking reduction may be important in the cessation process and potentially reduce health risks. METHODS: Because little is known about specific predictors of smoking reduction, we investigated factors predicting reduction among Black light smokers enrolled in a 26-week cessation trial. Specifically, we compared (a) reducers (reduced cigarettes per day [cpd] >or=50%) with nonreducers and (b) reducers with quitters. Baseline demographic, smoking-related, and psychosocial variables were collected, and Week 26 smoking status was assessed. RESULTS: Among 539 participants, 41.0% (n = 221) reduced their smoking, 17.6% (n = 95) quit, and 41.4% (n = 223) did not reduce their smoking by >or=50%. In comparison with reducers, nonreducers were more likely to have their first cigarette within 30 min of waking (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.47-3.93), lower baseline cpd (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.77-0.93), higher baseline cotinine levels (OR = 1.002, 95% CI = 1.000-1.003), lower perceived stress (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78-0.95), and higher Smoking Consequences Questionnaire (SCQ) negative social impression scores (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.06), after controlling for treatment arm, gender, and age. Significant predictors of smoking cessation versus reduction included lower baseline cpd (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75-0.95), higher nicotine dependence (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.09-1.98), lower baseline cotinine levels (OR = 0.996, 95% CI = 0.994-0.998), higher body mass index (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08), lower perceived stress (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.72-0.95), and higher SCQ negative social impression scores (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08). DISCUSSION: Distinct predictors are associated with different trajectories of smoking behavior change (i.e., reduction vs. cessation vs. no change).
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Blacks who smoke have increased tobacco-related health risks. Cessation decreases the likelihood of many health problems. Smoking reduction may be important in the cessation process and potentially reduce health risks. METHODS: Because little is known about specific predictors of smoking reduction, we investigated factors predicting reduction among Black light smokers enrolled in a 26-week cessation trial. Specifically, we compared (a) reducers (reduced cigarettes per day [cpd] >or=50%) with nonreducers and (b) reducers with quitters. Baseline demographic, smoking-related, and psychosocial variables were collected, and Week 26 smoking status was assessed. RESULTS: Among 539 participants, 41.0% (n = 221) reduced their smoking, 17.6% (n = 95) quit, and 41.4% (n = 223) did not reduce their smoking by >or=50%. In comparison with reducers, nonreducers were more likely to have their first cigarette within 30 min of waking (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.47-3.93), lower baseline cpd (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.77-0.93), higher baseline cotinine levels (OR = 1.002, 95% CI = 1.000-1.003), lower perceived stress (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78-0.95), and higher Smoking Consequences Questionnaire (SCQ) negative social impression scores (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.06), after controlling for treatment arm, gender, and age. Significant predictors of smoking cessation versus reduction included lower baseline cpd (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75-0.95), higher nicotine dependence (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.09-1.98), lower baseline cotinine levels (OR = 0.996, 95% CI = 0.994-0.998), higher body mass index (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08), lower perceived stress (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.72-0.95), and higher SCQ negative social impression scores (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08). DISCUSSION: Distinct predictors are associated with different trajectories of smoking behavior change (i.e., reduction vs. cessation vs. no change).
Authors: Natalie Slopen; Lauren M Dutra; David R Williams; Mahasin S Mujahid; Tené T Lewis; Gary G Bennett; Carol D Ryff; Michelle A Albert Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Vani Nath Simmons; Barbara Pineiro; Monica Webb Hooper; Jhanelle E Gray; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Christine Sheffer; James Mackillop; John McGeary; Reid Landes; Lawrence Carter; Richard Yi; Bryan Jones; Darren Christensen; Maxine Stitzer; Lisa Jackson; Warren Bickel Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2012-04-06
Authors: Monica Webb Hooper; Patricia Calixte-Civil; Christina Verzijl; Karen O Brandon; Taghrid Asfar; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Michael H Antoni; David J Lee; Vani N Simmons; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Natalie Slopen; Emily Z Kontos; Carol D Ryff; John Z Ayanian; Michelle A Albert; David R Williams Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Matthew J Worley; Melodie Isgro; Jaimee L Heffner; Soo Yong Lee; Belinda E Daniel; Robert M Anthenelli Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: David R Williams; Emily Z Kontos; K Viswanath; Jennifer S Haas; Christopher S Lathan; Laura E MacConaill; Jarvis Chen; John Z Ayanian Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Yong Cui; Jason D Robinson; Francesco Versace; Cho Y Lam; Jennifer A Minnix; Maher Karam-Hage; John A Dani; Thomas R Kosten; David W Wetter; Victoria L Brown; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Dana Rubenstein; Alexander W Sokolovsky; Elizabeth R Aston; Nicole L Nollen; Christopher H Schmid; Myra Rice; Kim Pulvers; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.913