Mollie E Miller1, Jennifer W Tidey2, Damaris J Rohsenow2, Stephen T Higgins3. 1. Postdoctoral Research Associate, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI. 2. Professor, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI. 3. Professor, Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Very few studies have evaluated perceptions of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) among smokers with mental illness. This study assessed expectancies about the effects of smoking combustible cigarettes or using ENDS among current smokers with and without severe psychological distress (SPD). METHODS: We used a crowdsourcing system to survey 268 smokers on their expectancies for the effects of combustible cigarettes and ENDS. Positive expectancies assessed included negative affect reduction, stimulation, positive social effects and weight control, and negative expectancies included negative physical effects, negative psychosocial effects and future health concerns. RESULTS: Smokers with SPD had higher positive expectancies for weight control and social effects of both products compared to those without such distress, and higher expectancies for stimulation from combustible cigarettes compared to ENDS. All participants had significantly lower negative expectancies for ENDS compared to combustible cigarettes, with no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers with SPD may be more vulnerable toward ENDS use, as they are for combustible cigarette use, due to greater positive expectancies of the products. Challenging positive expectancies may increase the efficacy of tobacco control efforts in this vulnerable population.
OBJECTIVES: Very few studies have evaluated perceptions of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) among smokers with mental illness. This study assessed expectancies about the effects of smoking combustible cigarettes or using ENDS among current smokers with and without severe psychological distress (SPD). METHODS: We used a crowdsourcing system to survey 268 smokers on their expectancies for the effects of combustible cigarettes and ENDS. Positive expectancies assessed included negative affect reduction, stimulation, positive social effects and weight control, and negative expectancies included negative physical effects, negative psychosocial effects and future health concerns. RESULTS: Smokers with SPD had higher positive expectancies for weight control and social effects of both products compared to those without such distress, and higher expectancies for stimulation from combustible cigarettes compared to ENDS. All participants had significantly lower negative expectancies for ENDS compared to combustible cigarettes, with no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers with SPD may be more vulnerable toward ENDS use, as they are for combustible cigarette use, due to greater positive expectancies of the products. Challenging positive expectancies may increase the efficacy of tobacco control efforts in this vulnerable population.
Authors: Stephen S Hecht; Steven G Carmella; Delshanee Kotandeniya; Makenzie E Pillsbury; Menglan Chen; Benjamin W S Ransom; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Elizabeth Thompson; Sharon E Murphy; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Peter S Hendricks; Mallory G Cases; Christopher B Thorne; JeeWon Cheong; Kathleen F Harrington; Connie L Kohler; William C Bailey Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Damaris J Rohsenow; David B Abrams; Peter M Monti; Suzanne M Colby; Rosemarie Martin; Raymond S Niaura Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Claire Adams Spears; Dina M Jones; Scott R Weaver; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Claire Adams Spears; Dina M Jones; Scott R Weaver; Bo Yang; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Andrea H Weinberger; Jiaqi Zhu; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Katarzyna Wyka; Renee D Goodwin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Mollie E Miller; Jennifer W Tidey; Janice Y Bunn; Diann E Gaalema; Lori A J Scott-Sheldon; Irene Pericot-Valverde; Sandra J Japuntich Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-07
Authors: Sarah I Pratt; Joelle C Ferron; Mary F Brunette; Meghan Santos; James Sargent; Haiyi Xie Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Allison N Kurti; Marissa Palmer; Jennifer W Tidey; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Maria R Cooper; Nicolle M Krebs; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Joy L Hart; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Neal L Benowitz; Suzanne M Colby; F Joseph McClernon; Andrew A Strasser; Jennifer W Tidey; Cassidy M White; Eric C Donny Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Claire Adams Spears; Dina M Jones; Scott R Weaver; Bo Yang; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 4.492