Comparable cigarette consumption data collected using timeline follow-back and digital diary among treatment-seeking smokers.

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1037/adb0000961
Yong Cui, Jason D Robinson, George Kypriotakis, Jennifer A Minnix, Charles E Green, Seokhun Kim, Maher Karam-Hage, Paul M Cinciripini
{"title":"Comparable cigarette consumption data collected using timeline follow-back and digital diary among treatment-seeking smokers.","authors":"Yong Cui, Jason D Robinson, George Kypriotakis, Jennifer A Minnix, Charles E Green, Seokhun Kim, Maher Karam-Hage, Paul M Cinciripini","doi":"10.1037/adb0000961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The timeline follow-back interview is a common method of collecting daily cigarette consumption (cigarettes per day [CPD]) in smoking research. However, it may be subject to recall bias due to its reliance on retrospective reports. The increasing ownership of smartphones allows researchers to administer app-based digital diaries (DD) to collect CPD, which is expected to have less recall bias. Several studies have compared these two methods and found a noticeable discrepancy between them. However, these studies have mainly focused on the time window when smokers were smoking ad libitum. In this study, we wanted to determine the comparability of these two methods when treatment-seeking smokers are attempting to quit smoking.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In a cessation trial, treatment-seeking smokers (<i>n</i> = 251) reported their CPD using the timeline follow-back and DD methods over a 12-week treatment period. To evaluate the comparability, we used the Bland-Altman comparison approach for agreement, correlational analysis between CPD and biochemical measures, digit bias, and logistic regression for predicting abstinence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the two methods exhibited good agreement, and the agreement did not vary as a function of consumption levels. Consistent with this agreement, CPD data from both methods showed similar correlations with biochemical measures of smoking and predicted 6-month abstinence in a comparable fashion. Despite the agreement, the DD method appeared to be more precise by having a lower digit bias than the timeline follow-back method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Capturing smoking behavior using either TLFB or DD approaches yields similar data while smokers are attempting to quit smoking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48325,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Addictive Behaviors","volume":" ","pages":"315-322"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10961249/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Addictive Behaviors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000961","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The timeline follow-back interview is a common method of collecting daily cigarette consumption (cigarettes per day [CPD]) in smoking research. However, it may be subject to recall bias due to its reliance on retrospective reports. The increasing ownership of smartphones allows researchers to administer app-based digital diaries (DD) to collect CPD, which is expected to have less recall bias. Several studies have compared these two methods and found a noticeable discrepancy between them. However, these studies have mainly focused on the time window when smokers were smoking ad libitum. In this study, we wanted to determine the comparability of these two methods when treatment-seeking smokers are attempting to quit smoking.

Method: In a cessation trial, treatment-seeking smokers (n = 251) reported their CPD using the timeline follow-back and DD methods over a 12-week treatment period. To evaluate the comparability, we used the Bland-Altman comparison approach for agreement, correlational analysis between CPD and biochemical measures, digit bias, and logistic regression for predicting abstinence.

Results: We found that the two methods exhibited good agreement, and the agreement did not vary as a function of consumption levels. Consistent with this agreement, CPD data from both methods showed similar correlations with biochemical measures of smoking and predicted 6-month abstinence in a comparable fashion. Despite the agreement, the DD method appeared to be more precise by having a lower digit bias than the timeline follow-back method.

Conclusions: Capturing smoking behavior using either TLFB or DD approaches yields similar data while smokers are attempting to quit smoking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

使用时间线追踪和数字日记收集的寻求治疗的吸烟者的可比较香烟消费数据。
目的:时间线追踪访谈是吸烟研究中收集每日吸烟量(CPD)的常用方法。然而,由于其对回顾性报告的依赖,它可能会受到召回偏见的影响。智能手机所有权的增加使研究人员能够管理基于应用程序的数字日记(DD)来收集CPD,预计这将减少回忆偏差。几项研究比较了这两种方法,发现它们之间存在明显的差异。然而,这些研究主要集中在吸烟者随意吸烟的时间窗口上。在这项研究中,我们想确定当寻求治疗的吸烟者试图戒烟时,这两种方法的可比性。方法:在一项戒烟试验中,寻求治疗的吸烟者(n=251)在12周的治疗期内使用时间线追踪和DD方法报告了他们的CPD。为了评估可比性,我们使用Bland-Altman比较方法进行一致性、CPD与生化指标之间的相关性分析、数字偏倚和逻辑回归来预测禁欲。结果:我们发现这两种方法表现出良好的一致性,并且一致性没有随着消费水平的变化而变化。与这一一致性一致的是,两种方法的CPD数据与吸烟的生化指标显示出相似的相关性,并以可比较的方式预测了6个月的禁欲。尽管达成了一致,但DD方法似乎比时间线追踪方法具有更低的数字偏差,因此更精确。结论:当吸烟者试图戒烟时,使用TLFB或DD方法捕捉吸烟行为会产生类似的数据。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
4.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: Psychology of Addictive Behaviors publishes peer-reviewed original articles related to the psychological aspects of addictive behaviors. The journal includes articles on the following topics: - alcohol and alcoholism - drug use and abuse - eating disorders - smoking and nicotine addiction, and other excessive behaviors (e.g., gambling) Full-length research reports, literature reviews, brief reports, and comments are published.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信