Switching people who smoke to unfiltered cigarettes: perceptions, addiction and behavioural effects in a cross-over randomised controlled trial.


Journal

Tobacco control
ISSN: 1468-3318
Titre abrégé: Tob Control
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9209612

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2023
Historique:
received: 29 05 2021
accepted: 03 11 2021
medline: 22 6 2023
pubmed: 21 11 2021
entrez: 20 11 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Behavioural research is needed to inform a ban on sales of filtered cigarettes that could reduce plastic waste due to discarded filters. This study reports on differences in perceptions, nicotine dependence and behaviour among participants in a cross-over randomised trial of filtered compared with unfiltered cigarettes. This proof-of-concept study involved 43 people who smoke filtered cigarettes (41.9% women, mean age 36.7 years). Participants were provided 2 weeks' supply of filtered cigarettes, 2 weeks of the same brand of unfiltered cigarettes and randomly assigned to starting conditions. Measures included the Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire; single-item cigarette perception questions; Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence; 7-day cigarette consumption, urinary cotinine and intention to quit. Analyses included linear and ordinal repeated measures mixed-effects models and paired t-tests. Filtered cigarettes were perceived as better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes. Filtered cigarettes were smoked at a higher rate during the trial than unfiltered cigarettes (p People who smoke perceived unfiltered cigarettes as having greater nicotine effects and less desirable sensory effects than filtered cigarettes, and they smoked fewer of these during the trial. Although cotinine, dependence and intention to quit were similar for smoking unfiltered and filtered cigarettes in this small trial, results suggest that banning the sale of filtered cigarettes might make smoking less attractive overall to people who smoke. NCT03749876.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Behavioural research is needed to inform a ban on sales of filtered cigarettes that could reduce plastic waste due to discarded filters. This study reports on differences in perceptions, nicotine dependence and behaviour among participants in a cross-over randomised trial of filtered compared with unfiltered cigarettes.
METHOD
This proof-of-concept study involved 43 people who smoke filtered cigarettes (41.9% women, mean age 36.7 years). Participants were provided 2 weeks' supply of filtered cigarettes, 2 weeks of the same brand of unfiltered cigarettes and randomly assigned to starting conditions. Measures included the Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire; single-item cigarette perception questions; Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence; 7-day cigarette consumption, urinary cotinine and intention to quit. Analyses included linear and ordinal repeated measures mixed-effects models and paired t-tests.
RESULTS
Filtered cigarettes were perceived as better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes. Filtered cigarettes were smoked at a higher rate during the trial than unfiltered cigarettes (p
CONCLUSION
People who smoke perceived unfiltered cigarettes as having greater nicotine effects and less desirable sensory effects than filtered cigarettes, and they smoked fewer of these during the trial. Although cotinine, dependence and intention to quit were similar for smoking unfiltered and filtered cigarettes in this small trial, results suggest that banning the sale of filtered cigarettes might make smoking less attractive overall to people who smoke.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT03749876.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34799433
pii: tobaccocontrol-2021-056815
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056815
doi:

Substances chimiques

Cotinine K5161X06LL

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03749876']

Types de publication

Randomized Controlled Trial Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

520-523

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Kim Pulvers (K)

Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, California, USA kpulvers@csusm.edu.

LaRee Tracy (L)

School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Thomas E Novotny (TE)

School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Nora Satybaldiyeva (N)

School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Adam Hunn (A)

School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Devan R Romero (DR)

Department of Kinesiology, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, California, USA.

Nathan G Dodder (NG)

School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA, USA.

Jose Magraner (J)

School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Eyal Oren (E)

School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH