Peter S Hendricks1, Mallory G Cases2, Christopher B Thorne3, JeeWon Cheong4, Kathleen F Harrington5, Connie L Kohler6, William C Bailey7. 1. Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: phendricks@uab.edu. 2. Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: mgcases@uab.edu. 3. Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: cbthorne@uab.edu. 4. Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: jcheong@uab.edu. 5. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave. S., Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: kharring@uab.edu. 6. Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: ckohler@uab.edu. 7. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave. S., Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: wcbailey@uab.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of the current study were to compare hospitalized smokers' expectancies for electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) against their expectancies for tobacco cigarettes and evaluate relationships between e-cigarette expectancies and intention to use e-cigarettes. METHODS: Analysis of baseline data from a one-year longitudinal observational study. The setting was a tertiary care academic center hospital in the Southeastern U.S. Participants were 958 hospitalized tobacco cigarette smokers. A questionnaire of e-cigarette expectancies based on the Brief Smoking Consequences Questionnaire-Adult (BSCQ-A) was developed and administered along with the original, tobacco-specific, BSCQ-A. Intention to use e-cigarettes was assessed with a single 10-point Likert scale item. RESULTS: Participants reported significantly weaker expectancies for e-cigarettes relative to tobacco cigarettes on all 10 BSCQ-A scales. Participants held sizably weaker expectancies that e-cigarettes pose health risks (p<.001, Cohen's d=-2.07), relieve negative affect (p<.001, Cohen's d=-1.01), satisfy the desire for nicotine (p<.001, Cohen's d=-.83), and taste pleasant (p<.001, Cohen's d=-.73). Among the strongest predictors of intention to use e-cigarettes were greater expectancies that e-cigarettes taste pleasant (p<.001, adjusted β=.34), relieve negative affect (p<.001, adjusted β=.32), and satisfy the desire for nicotine (p<.001, adjusted β=.31). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized tobacco smokers expect fewer negative and positive outcomes from e-cigarettes versus tobacco cigarettes. This suggests that e-cigarettes might be viable though imperfect substitutes for tobacco cigarettes.
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of the current study were to compare hospitalized smokers' expectancies for electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) against their expectancies for tobacco cigarettes and evaluate relationships between e-cigarette expectancies and intention to use e-cigarettes. METHODS: Analysis of baseline data from a one-year longitudinal observational study. The setting was a tertiary care academic center hospital in the Southeastern U.S. Participants were 958 hospitalized tobacco cigarette smokers. A questionnaire of e-cigarette expectancies based on the Brief Smoking Consequences Questionnaire-Adult (BSCQ-A) was developed and administered along with the original, tobacco-specific, BSCQ-A. Intention to use e-cigarettes was assessed with a single 10-point Likert scale item. RESULTS:Participants reported significantly weaker expectancies for e-cigarettes relative to tobacco cigarettes on all 10 BSCQ-A scales. Participants held sizably weaker expectancies that e-cigarettes pose health risks (p<.001, Cohen's d=-2.07), relieve negative affect (p<.001, Cohen's d=-1.01), satisfy the desire for nicotine (p<.001, Cohen's d=-.83), and taste pleasant (p<.001, Cohen's d=-.73). Among the strongest predictors of intention to use e-cigarettes were greater expectancies that e-cigarettes taste pleasant (p<.001, adjusted β=.34), relieve negative affect (p<.001, adjusted β=.32), and satisfy the desire for nicotine (p<.001, adjusted β=.31). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized tobacco smokers expect fewer negative and positive outcomes from e-cigarettes versus tobacco cigarettes. This suggests that e-cigarettes might be viable though imperfect substitutes for tobacco cigarettes.
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Danielle E McCarthy; Matthew R Majeskie; Michael C Fiore Journal: Psychol Rev Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 8.934
Authors: Robert D Reid; Kerri-Anne Mullen; Monika E Slovinec D'Angelo; Debbie A Aitken; Sophia Papadakis; Patricia M Haley; Christine A McLaughlin; Andrew L Pipe Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Paul T Harrell; Vani N Simmons; Barbara Piñeiro; John B Correa; Nicole S Menzie; Lauren R Meltzer; Marina Unrod; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Monica Webb Hooper; Taghrid Asfar; Marina Unrod; Asha Dorsey; John B Correa; Karen O Brandon; Vani N Simmons; Michael A Antoni; Tulay Koru-Sengul; David J Lee; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Peter S Hendricks; Christopher B Thorne; Sara N Lappan; Noah W Sweat; JeeWon Cheong; Rekha Ramachandran; Connie L Kohler; William C Bailey; Kathleen F Harrington Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Natacha M De Genna; Thomas Ylioja; Anna E Schulze; Christine Manta; Antoine B Douaihy; Esa M Davis Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2017 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.702