Dataset Information

Effects of experimental negative affect manipulations on ad libitum smoking: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: To quantify the effect of negative affect (NA), when manipulated experimentally, upon smoking as measured within laboratory paradigms. Quantitative meta-analyses tested the effects of NA versus neutral conditions on (1) latency to smoke and (2) number of puffs taken.Twelve experimental studies tested the influence of NA induction, relative to a neutral control condition (n?=?1190; range?=?24-235). Those providing relevant data contributed to separate random-effects meta-analyses to examine the effects of NA on two primary smoking measures: (1) latency to smoke (nine studies) and (2) number of puffs taken during ad libitum smoking (11 studies). Hedge's g was calculated for all studies through the use of post-NA cue responses relative to post-neutral cue responses. This effect size estimate is similar to Cohen's d, but corrects for small sample size bias.NA reliably decreased latency to smoke (g?=?-0.14; CI?=?-0.23 to -0.04; P?=?0.007) and increased number of puffs taken (g?=?0.14; CI?=?0.02 to 0.25; P?=?0.02). There was considerable variability across studies for both outcomes (I(2) ?=?51 and 65% for latency and consumption, respectively). Potential publication bias was indicated for both outcomes, and adjusted effect sizes were smaller and no longer statistically significant.In experimental laboratory studies of smokers, negative affect appears to reduce latency to smoking and increase number of puffs taken, but this could be due to publication bias.

SUBMITTER: Heckman BW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4398635 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of experimental negative affect manipulations on ad libitum smoking: a meta-analysis.

Heckman Bryan W BW Carpenter Matthew J MJ Correa John B JB Wray Jennifer M JM Saladin Michael E ME Froeliger Brett B Drobes David J DJ Brandon Thomas H TH

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20150501 5

<h4>Aims</h4>To quantify the effect of negative affect (NA), when manipulated experimentally, upon smoking as measured within laboratory paradigms. Quantitative meta-analyses tested the effects of NA versus neutral conditions on (1) latency to smoke and (2) number of puffs taken.<h4>Methods</h4>Twelve experimental studies tested the influence of NA induction, relative to a neutral control condition (n = 1190; range = 24-235). Those providing relevant data contributed to separate random-effects m ...[more]

PMID: 25641624

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsReinforcing value, an index of motivation for a drug, is commonly measured using behavioral economic purchase tasks. State-oriented purchase tasks are sensitive to phasic manipulations, but with heterogeneous methods and findings. The aim of this meta-analysis was to characterize the literature examining manipulations of reinforcing value, as measured by purchase tasks and multiple-choice procedures, to inform etiological models and treatment approaches METHODS: A random-effects meta-analysis of published findings in peer-reviewed articles. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol, studies were gathered through searches in PsycINFO and PubMed/MEDLINE (published 22 May 2018). Searches returned 34 unique studies (aggregate sample n = 2402; average sample size = 68.94) yielding 126 effect sizes. Measurements included change (i.e. Cohen's d) in six behavioral economic indices (intensity, breakpoint, Omax , Pmax , elasticity, cross-over point) in relation to six experimental manipulations (cue exposure, stress/negative affect, reinforcer magnitude, pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, opportunity cost).ResultsCue exposure (d range = 0.25-0.44, all Ps < 0.05) and reinforcer magnitude [d = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.18, 1.01; P < 0.005] manipulations resulted in significant increases in behavioral economic demand across studies. Stress/negative affect manipulations also resulted in a small, significant increase in Omax (d = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.34; P = 0.03); all other effect sizes for negative affect/stress were non-significant, albeit similar in size (d range = 0.14-0.18). In contrast, pharmacotherapy (d range = -0.37 to -0.49; Ps < 0.04), behavioral intervention (d = -0.36 to -1.13) and external contingency (d = -1.42; CI = -2.30, -0.54; P = 0.002) manipulations resulted in a significant decrease in intensity. Moderators (substance type) explained some of the heterogeneity in findings across meta-analyses.ConclusionsIn behavioral economic studies, purchase tasks and multiple-choice procedures appear to provide indices that are sensitive to manipulations found to influence motivation to consume addictive substances in field experiments.

Project description:AimsTo identify when smoking cessation treatments affect craving, negative affect and anhedonia, and how these symptoms relate to abstinence, to help evaluate the effects of particular intervention components in multi-component treatments and accelerate treatment refinement.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a two-arm randomized controlled trial.SettingSeven primary care clinics in Wisconsin, United States.ParticipantsAdult primary care patients who smoked daily (n = 574).Intervention and comparatorIntervention was abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT, n = 276) comprising 3 weeks of nicotine mini-lozenges pre-target quit day (TQD), 26 weeks of combination nicotine patch and mini-lozenges post-TQD and extensive psychosocial support. The comparator was recommended usual care (RUC, n = 298), comprising brief counseling and 8 weeks of nicotine patch post-TQD.MeasurementsTime-varying effect models examined dynamic effects of A-OT (versus RUC) on the primary outcomes of nightly cigarette craving, negative affect and anhedonia from 1 week pre- to 2 weeks post-TQD. Exploratory models examined within-person relations between nicotine medication use and same-day symptom ratings. Secondary logistic regression analyses examined associations between post-TQD craving, negative affect and anhedonia and 1-month post-TQD abstinence.FindingsA-OT significantly suppressed pre- and post-TQD craving (β = -0.27 to -0.46 across days) and post-TQD anhedonia (β = -0.24 to -0.38 across days), relative to RUC. Within individuals, using patches was associated with lower negative affect in RUC (β = -0.42 to -0.52), but not in A-OT. Using more mini-lozenges was associated with greater craving (β = 0.04-0.07) and negative affect (β = 0.03-0.05) early, and with lower anhedonia (β = -0.06 to -0.12) later. Greater post-TQD craving (OR = 0.68) and anhedonia (OR = 0.85) predicted lower odds of abstinence 1 month post-TQD.ConclusionTime-varying effect models showed that a multi-component treatment intervention for smoking cessation suppressed significant withdrawal symptoms more effectively than recommended usual care among daily adult smokers motivated to quit. The intervention reduced craving pre- and post-target quit day (TQD) and anhedonia post-TQD.

Dataset Information

Effects of experimental negative affect manipulations on ad libitum smoking: a meta-analysis.

Publications

Effects of experimental negative affect manipulations on ad libitum smoking: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets