Search

Objective: Few national estimates are available on the prevalence of tobacco use disorder (TUD) in the United States (US), and most trials exclusively assess daily smoking rather than TUD. We examined the prevalence and trends in cigarette smoking with vs without TUD among adults., Methods: Data came from the 2010-2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (n = 483,982), a cross sectional, US representative dataset. A TUD composite variable was created based on established definitions (eg, DSM-5 symptoms). Weighted prevalence of past 30-day cigarette smoking, daily smoking (30/30 days) and nondaily smoking (<30/30 days) with and without TUD, was calculated annually., Results: In 2021, the prevalence of past 30- day overall cigarette smoking was 17%; 11% reported daily cigarette smoking, whereas 6% reported nondaily cigarette smoking. Only 1% of the population reported daily smoking without TUD, whereas 10% reported daily smoking with TUD. Two percent of the population reported nondaily smoking without TUD, and 4% of the population reported nondaily smoking with TUD. Daily smoking with TUD and nondaily smoking with and without TUD decreased significantly from 2010 to 2021 (all P 's < .001). US adults reporting TUD symptoms (vs not) were more likely to be older, identify as White, have lower income and less education, and have a substance use disorder., Conclusions: The prevalence of daily cigarette smoking with TUD was 10× higher than the prevalence of daily cigarette smoking without TUD. Twice as many US adults with nondaily smoking reported TUD than no TUD, illustrating that daily smoking is not necessary for TUD., (© Copyright 2024 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

This paper reports on topics discussed at a Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco pre-conference workshop at the 2019 annual Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco meeting. The goal of the pre-conference workshop was to help develop a shared understanding of the importance of several tobacco-related priority groups in tobacco use disorder (TUD) treatment research and to highlight challenges in measurement related to these groups. The workshop focused on persons with minoritized sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation identities; persons with minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds; persons with lower socioeconomic status (SES); and persons with mental health concerns. In addition to experiencing commercial tobacco-related health disparities, these groups are also underrepresented in tobacco research, including TUD treatment studies. Importantly, there is wide variation in how and whether researchers are identifying variation within these priority groups. Best practices for measuring and reporting sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, SES, and mental health concerns in TUD treatment research are needed. This paper provides information about measurement challenges when including these groups in TUD treatment research and specific recommendations about how to measure these groups and assess potential disparities in outcomes. The goal of this paper is to encourage TUD treatment researchers to use measurement best practices in these priority groups in an effort to conduct meaningful and equity-promoting research. Increasing the inclusion and visibility of these groups in TUD treatment research will help to move the field forward in decreasing tobacco-related health disparities. Implications: Tobacco-related disparities exist for a number of priority groups including, among others, women, individuals with minoritized sexual and gender identities, individuals with minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds, individuals with lower SES, and individuals with mental health concerns. Research on TUD treatments for many of these subgroups is lacking. Accurate assessment and consideration of these subgroups will provide needed information about efficacious and effective TUD treatments, about potential mediators and moderators, and for accurately describing study samples, all critical elements for reducing tobacco-related disparities, and improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in TUD treatment research., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Over 10 million adults report use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), with approximately 3.6 million reporting daily use. Even as the popularity of ENDS has increased, both as an available nicotine delivery system and an alternative to combustible cigarette smoking, few studies to date have examined ENDS cessation interest and related behaviors among ENDS users. The current study aimed to describe past year attempts to quit ENDS among current users and to investigate ENDS use / user characteristics associated with unsuccessful attempts to quit in the past year among adult, current, established ENDS users using data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 4. Over 10 % of ENDS users reported an attempt to quit completely in the past year, and 60 % indicated future intention to quit completely. Higher nicotine dependence, lower-frequency ENDS use, and higher interest in quitting were associated with past year attempts to quit ENDS. The current study adds support to claims that many ENDS users plan to quit using ENDS someday and highlights the need for continued research on ENDS cessation., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Cigarette smoking disproportionately affects communities of low socioeconomic status where greater smoking prevalence and poorer cessation rates have been observed. Utilizing brief evidence-based interventions to increase cessation attempts may be an effective and easily disseminable means by which to mitigate undue burden in this population., Aims and Methods: The current intervention randomized daily smokers (N = 57) recruited from a local community soup kitchen to receive either Brief (eg, 30 m) Motivational Interviewing, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) sampling, or a Referral-Only intervention. Approximately half of participants (50.9%) reported not completing high school and many reported either just (41.4%) or not (40.4%) meeting basic expenses. Follow-up was completed approximately 1-month postintervention., Results: Nonsignificant group differences indicated that participants randomized to the NRT sampling condition were more likely to make a quit attempt (moderate effect size). Approximately 40% of the sample reported making a serious quit attempt at follow-up. Significant differences in cigarettes per day at follow-up, controlling for baseline, were observed, with participants in the Motivational Interviewing condition, only, reporting significant reductions. Participants randomized to the NRT condition were significantly more likely to report using NRT patch and lozenge at follow-up (large effect). There were no differences between groups with respect to seeking behavioral support. Finally, we found that subjective financial strain moderated the effect of condition on change in cigarette consumption where NRT sampling was more effective for participants reporting less financial strain., Conclusions: Findings provide initial evidence for personalizing brief interventions to promote quit attempts in low-income smokers., Implications: While most clinical research on tobacco use and dependence focuses on successful sustained abstinence, the current study is novel because it examined three brief interventions designed to increase the number of quit attempts made by a nontreatment-seeking group suffering from health disparities (ie, smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage). These data suggest that nontreatment-seeking smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage can be influenced by Brief MIs and these interventions should be used to motivate smokers from socioeconomic disadvantage to make a quit attempt. Future studies should examine combined MIs including pharmacological and behavioral interventions., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)