Search

Although over 70% of homeless individuals smoke, few studies have examined the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in this vulnerable population. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the effectiveness of shelter-based smoking cessation clinic usual care (UC) to an adjunctive contingency management (CM) treatment that offered UC plus small financial incentives for smoking abstinence. Sixty-eight homeless individuals in Dallas, Texas (recruited in 2012) were assigned to UC (n =58) or UC plus financial incentives (CM; n =10) groups and were followed for 5 consecutive weeks (1 week pre-quit through 4 weeks post-quit). A generalized linear mixed model regression analysis was conducted to compare biochemically-verified abstinence rates between groups. An additional model examined the interaction between time and treatment group. The participants were primarily male (61.8%) and African American (58.8%), and were 49 years of age on average. There was a significant effect of treatment group on abstinence overall, and effects varied over time. Follow-up logistic regression analyses indicated that CM participants were significantly more likely than UC participants to be abstinent on the quit date (50% vs. 19% abstinent) and at 4 weeks post-quit (30% vs. 1.7% abstinent). Offering small financial incentives for smoking abstinence may be an effective way to facilitate smoking cessation in homeless individuals. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Research suggests that there are racial disparities in smoking behaviors, cessation rates, mortality, and morbidity. However, little is known regarding racial differences in affect regulation by smoking. The purpose of this study was to examine racial differences in the effects of nicotine deprivation and administration on smokers'' startle responding to smoking and affective cues. 104 African American (AA) and Caucasian American (CA) smokers completed 4 laboratory sessions crossing nicotine deprivation (12-hour deprived vs. nondeprived) with nicotine nasal spray (active vs. placebo). Participants viewed affective (positive, neutral, and negative) and smoking slides while startle probes were administered. The results showed that relative to placebo, AA smokers given nicotine spray exhibited significantly lower startle responses when they were exposed to smoking cues and CA smokers given nicotine spray exhibited significantly lower startle responses when they were exposed to negative and neutral cues. Although nicotine suppresses startle responding in both AA and CA smokers, the effect is modulated by different cue conditions, suggesting that there may be racial differences in components of smoking motivation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]