Comparing video observation to electronic topography device as a method for measuring cigarette puffing behavior.

Autor: Mercincavage M; Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States; University of Pennsylvania-Rutgers University Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: melmer@pennmedicine.upenn.edu., Karelitz JL; Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Publich Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States., Kreider CL; Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States., Souprountchouk V; Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States., Albelda B; Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States., Strasser AA; Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States; University of Pennsylvania-Rutgers University Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Drug and alcohol dependence [Drug Alcohol Depend] 2021 Apr 01; Vol. 221, pp. 108623. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Feb 17.
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108623
Abstrakt: Background: Smoking topography, or puffing behavior, is an important measure of how consumers may use tobacco products. However, numerous issues may prevent collection of this data via in-person, electronic topography device (e.g., CReSS). This study compared cigarette topography measures collected by video observation and electronic device.
Methods: Laboratory smoking sessions were video recorded and scored for 96 cigarettes collected from 34 daily, adult non-treatment-seeking smokers (73.5 % male, 82.4 % White). Participants smoked three of their preferred brand cigarettes using an electronic topography device, providing carbon monoxide (CO) samples before and after each cigarette. Analyses compared measures from both assessment methods and examined associations with device-obtained total puff volume and CO boost.
Results: Agreement analyses indicated robust similarity between methods for measures of puff count and total interpuff interval (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]'s > 0.96,p's < 0.001; Bland-Altman [B-A] plotted differences within a priori limit of clinical significance) but diverged on total duration (ICC's > .93, p's < .001, yet B-A plots outside a priori limits). Regardless of assessment method, total duration and puff count (but not total interpuff interval) predicted total puff volume (p's < .001). None predicted CO boost (p's = .07-.90)."
Conclusions: Although some topography outcomes (e.g., total puff volume) cannot be assessed via video observation, video-observed measures of puff count, total duration, and total interpuff interval are generally interchangeable with their topography device-obtained counterparts. Thus, video observation is likely a sufficient substitute method for assessing cigarette topography when using an electronic device is not possible.
(Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: