واکنش پذیری نشانه پیش درمانی پایان درمان استعمال سیگار را پیش بینی می کند

Abstract Although a substantial body of literature has established a relationship between cue reactivity and theoretically relevant addiction variables, the association with treatment process variables remains largely unexplored. In the current investigation, 62 smokers participated in a smoking cue reactivity study, and subsequently enrolled in a smoking cessation program. Hierarchical regressions revealed mean heart rate during the cue presentation phase of the laboratory-based assessment predicted final session smoking rate and expired CO level. Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire score also predicted final session smoking rate. To the extent that rate reduction serves as an index of treatment progress, it may be of value in future cue reactivity research.

. Results 2.1. Participant characteristics Table 1 presents characteristics for the study sample. Overall, participants were predominantly high-school educated, middle-aged males who were chronic, nicotine dependent smokers. Table 1. Participant characteristics Mean SD Daily rate 29.51 13.09 Years smoking 29.64 12.75 FTQ score 6.61 1.76 Age 49.03 12.09 Education 13.31 3.06 Race (African American) 34% Table options 2.2. Pretreatment analyses Pretreatment Smoking Rate was predicted by FTQ score, Fchange = 27.61, p < .001. Desire to Smoke rating was also related, Fchange = 5.72, p < .02. All other variables were non-significant. Pretreatment CO level was unrelated to all predictors (the overall IBI analysis was significant, but all individual variables failed to enter into the final equation) ( Table 2). Table 2. Final hierarchical regression models for pretreatment variables 1. Pretreatment smoking rate Variable β-in R2 Ch F Ch p a. IBI measurements: adjusted R2 = .204; F(5,97) = 6.243, p < .001 Deprivation ns FTQ .463 .202 25.879 .000 BL IBI ns CP IBI ns b. Desire ratings: adjusted R2 = .257; F(5,100) = 8.254, p < .001 Deprivation ns FTQ .468 .207 27.613 .000 BL desire rating .237 .041 5.724 .019 CP desire rating ns c. Other self-report ratings: adjusted R2 = .188; F(9,83) = 3.371, p < .005 Deprivation ns FTQ .456 .193 22.286 .000 BL other ratings ns CP other ratings ns 2. Pretreatment expired CO level a. IBI measurements: adjusted R2 = .085; F(5,96) = 2.885, p < .02 (all blocks ns) b. Desire rating: F(5,99) = 1.700, p = .142 (ns) c. Other self-report ratings: F(9,83) = 1.254, p = .275 (ns) FTQ = Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire; BL = Baseline Phase; CP = Cue Presentation Phase. Table options 2.3. End-of-treatment analyses End-of-Treatment Smoking Rate was predicted by FTQ score, Fchange = 6.29, p < .02. Smoking Rate was also predicted by Cue Presentation phase IBI, Fchange = 4.16, p < .05, such that shorter IBI (i.e., higher heart rate response) predicted greater Smoking Rate. In a similar fashion, shorter IBI during the Cue Presentation phase predicted higher CO level at Session 6, Fchange = 6.11, p < .02. No other findings emerged ( Table 3). Table 3. Final hierarchical regression models for end-of-treatment variables 1. End-of-treatment smoking rate Variable β-in R2 Ch F Ch p a. IBI measurements: adjusted R2 = .171; F(5,57) = 3.561, p < .01 Deprivation ns FTQ .305 .202 6.289 .015 BL IBI ns CP IBI − .636 .056 4.163 .046 b. Desire rating: adjusted R2 = .184; F(5,59) = 3.893, p < .005 Deprivation ns FTQ .345 .111 8.267 .006 BL desire rating ns CP desire rating ns c. Other self-report ratings: adjusted R2 = .163; F(9,50) = 2.278, p < .04 Deprivation ns FTQ .374 .126 8.791 .004 BL other ratings ns CP other ratings ns 2. End-of-treatment expired CO level a. IBI measurements: adjusted R2 = .100; F(5,57) = 2.382, p < .05 Deprivation ns FTQ ns BL IBI ns CP IBI − .802 .089 6.105 .016 b. Desire rating: F(5,59) = 1.666, p = .157 (ns) c. Other self-report ratings: F(9,50) = 0.862, p = .565 (ns) FTQ = Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire; BL = Baseline Phase; CP = Cue Presentation Phase.