OBJECTIVES: Behavioral economic purchase tasks, which estimate demand for drugs, have been successfully developed for cigarettes and are widely used. However, a validated purchase task does not yet exist for e-cigarettes. The aim of this project was to identify the relevant units for an e-cigarette purchase task (E-CPT). METHODS: Focus groups (N=28 participants in 7 groups, 2-7 participants per group) consisting of current e-cigarette users were conducted. Participants discussed their daily use patterns, completed a preliminary E-CPT which asked how many puffs of their e-cigarette they would consume per day at escalating prices, and discussed the extent to which the task accurately reflected their real-world behavior. Groups were recorded and transcribed; analysis focused on statements related to daily consumption and the E-CPT. RESULTS: Participants were unlikely to quantify their daily use in terms of puffs, and perceptions about the appropriate unit for an E-CPT varied across device type. Users of first-generation devices (eg, cigalikes) reported that the relevant unit was the individual device/cartridge; however, participants who purchased nicotine liquid for their device emphasized that e-liquid volume in milliliters would better reflect their use. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple versions of the E-CPT may be necessary to provide valid measures of e-cigarette demand.
OBJECTIVES: Behavioral economic purchase tasks, which estimate demand for drugs, have been successfully developed for cigarettes and are widely used. However, a validated purchase task does not yet exist for e-cigarettes. The aim of this project was to identify the relevant units for an e-cigarette purchase task (E-CPT). METHODS: Focus groups (N=28 participants in 7 groups, 2-7 participants per group) consisting of current e-cigarette users were conducted. Participants discussed their daily use patterns, completed a preliminary E-CPT which asked how many puffs of their e-cigarette they would consume per day at escalating prices, and discussed the extent to which the task accurately reflected their real-world behavior. Groups were recorded and transcribed; analysis focused on statements related to daily consumption and the E-CPT. RESULTS:Participants were unlikely to quantify their daily use in terms of puffs, and perceptions about the appropriate unit for an E-CPT varied across device type. Users of first-generation devices (eg, cigalikes) reported that the relevant unit was the individual device/cartridge; however, participants who purchased nicotine liquid for their device emphasized that e-liquid volume in milliliters would better reflect their use. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple versions of the E-CPT may be necessary to provide valid measures of e-cigarette demand.
Authors: James MacKillop; James G Murphy; Lara A Ray; Daniel T A Eisenberg; Stephen A Lisman; J Koji Lum; David S Wilson Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Rachel N Cassidy; Jennifer W Tidey; Xianghua Luo; Chap T Le; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric C Donny Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Warren K Bickel; Matthew W Johnson; Mikhail N Koffarnus; James MacKillop; James G Murphy Journal: Annu Rev Clin Psychol Date: 2014 Impact factor: 18.561
Authors: Konstantinos E Farsalinos; Giorgio Romagna; Dimitris Tsiapras; Stamatis Kyrzopoulos; Vassilis Voudris Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Cara M Murphy; Rachel N Cassidy; Rosemarie A Martin; Jennifer W Tidey; James Mackillop; Damaris J Rohsenow Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Barry G Green; Grace Kong; Dana A Cavallo; Peter Jatlow; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Eugenia Buta; Stephanie S O'Malley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: John R Hughes; Erica N Peters; Peter W Callas; Catherine Peasley-Miklus; Emmanuel Oga; Jean-Francois Etter; Nicholas Morley Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: John R Hughes; Erica N Peters; Peter W Callas; Catherine Peasley-Miklus; Emmanuel Oga; Jean-Francois Etter; Nicholas Morley Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Georges J Nahas; Marc C Willemsen; Richard J O'Connor; Ron Borland; Alexander A Hirsch; Warren K Bickel; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 4.244