Cue Reactivity to Electronic Cigarettes: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.4 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2022-07-28 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11782218221114971
Merel Keijsers, Maria Cecilia Vega-Corredor, Simon Hoermann, Melanie Tomintz
{"title":"Cue Reactivity to Electronic Cigarettes: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Merel Keijsers,&nbsp;Maria Cecilia Vega-Corredor,&nbsp;Simon Hoermann,&nbsp;Melanie Tomintz","doi":"10.1177/11782218221114971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cue reactivity to Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) has been studied by several researchers, yet the variability in user types (smokers, former smokers, dual users, exclusive ENDS users) and ENDS designs used between the studies may have undermined consistent results. This systematic review aims to give an overview of ENDS cue reactivity and how smoking status and device design may moderate this. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane was completed. All studies which reported findings on reactivity to ENDS cues in the form of craving or desire for ENDS or cigarettes, attention to cue, delay of gratification or economic decisions were included. Exclusion criteria were non-human subjects, non-adult participants or participants with comorbidities. Literature selection was carried out by 2 independent reviewers. The risk of bias and study quality were assessed using tools developed by Cochrane, BMJ and NHLBI. A total of 711 papers were screened and 22 studies were included in the current review. Study design, research question(s), population of interest, number of participants, dependent variable(s), ENDS generation and nicotine content used and study results were extracted. ENDS cues reliably induced ENDS craving, with no clear moderation by smoking status and no apparent moderation by device generation. In about half of the studies, ENDS cues induced craving for conventional cigarettes. Most studies used a smoker sample, thus limiting the conclusions that can be drawn on the moderation of cue reactivity by smoking status. The quality varied among studies but comparing the findings against the outcomes of only high-quality studies did not yield any different results. The results of this review support the notion of cue reactivity to ENDS, identifies gaps in current research on different user types and implies that ENDS design iterations have little impact on cue reactivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":22185,"journal":{"name":"Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment","volume":" ","pages":"11782218221114971"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ab/99/10.1177_11782218221114971.PMC9340385.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11782218221114971","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Cue reactivity to Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) has been studied by several researchers, yet the variability in user types (smokers, former smokers, dual users, exclusive ENDS users) and ENDS designs used between the studies may have undermined consistent results. This systematic review aims to give an overview of ENDS cue reactivity and how smoking status and device design may moderate this. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane was completed. All studies which reported findings on reactivity to ENDS cues in the form of craving or desire for ENDS or cigarettes, attention to cue, delay of gratification or economic decisions were included. Exclusion criteria were non-human subjects, non-adult participants or participants with comorbidities. Literature selection was carried out by 2 independent reviewers. The risk of bias and study quality were assessed using tools developed by Cochrane, BMJ and NHLBI. A total of 711 papers were screened and 22 studies were included in the current review. Study design, research question(s), population of interest, number of participants, dependent variable(s), ENDS generation and nicotine content used and study results were extracted. ENDS cues reliably induced ENDS craving, with no clear moderation by smoking status and no apparent moderation by device generation. In about half of the studies, ENDS cues induced craving for conventional cigarettes. Most studies used a smoker sample, thus limiting the conclusions that can be drawn on the moderation of cue reactivity by smoking status. The quality varied among studies but comparing the findings against the outcomes of only high-quality studies did not yield any different results. The results of this review support the notion of cue reactivity to ENDS, identifies gaps in current research on different user types and implies that ENDS design iterations have little impact on cue reactivity.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

对电子烟的提示反应:一项系统综述。
几位研究人员研究了电子尼古丁传递系统(ENDS)的线索反应性,但使用者类型(吸烟者、前吸烟者、双重使用者、独家ENDS使用者)和研究之间使用的ENDS设计的可变性可能破坏了一致的结果。这篇系统综述的目的是概述ENDS的线索反应性,以及吸烟状况和设备设计如何调节这种反应。系统检索Medline、Embase、Web of Science、PubMed和Cochrane。所有报告对ENDS线索的反应性的研究都包括在对ENDS或香烟的渴望或欲望、对提示的注意、满足延迟或经济决策的形式中。排除标准为非人类受试者、非成人受试者或有合并症的受试者。文献选择由2名独立审稿人进行。使用Cochrane、BMJ和NHLBI开发的工具评估偏倚风险和研究质量。本次综述共筛选了711篇论文,纳入了22项研究。提取研究设计、研究问题、感兴趣人群、参与者人数、因变量、ENDS生成和使用的尼古丁含量以及研究结果。烟瘾线索可靠地诱发烟瘾,吸烟状况和设备产生没有明显的调节作用。在大约一半的研究中,ENDS提示诱发了对传统香烟的渴望。大多数研究使用的是吸烟者样本,因此限制了吸烟状况对线索反应的调节作用的结论。各研究的质量各不相同,但将研究结果与仅高质量研究的结果进行比较并没有产生任何不同的结果。本综述的结果支持线索对终端的反应性概念,确定了当前研究中不同用户类型的差距,并表明终端设计迭代对线索反应性的影响很小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信