Search

Objective: The exclusion criteria of tobacco cessation randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may have unintended consequences on inclusion and cessation disparities. We examined racial/ethnic differences in: a) exclusion from a group-based cessation RCT; and b) reasons for exclusion., Design: Quasi-experimental. Inclusion criteria were self-identification as African American/Black, non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic (any race), adults, minimum five cigarettes/day or carbon monoxide reading of ≥ 8 parts per million (ppm), interest in quitting, and spoke/read English. Data were obtained from a parent trial, which is ongoing and will be completed in 2019. Analyses for our present study on participant screening and enrollment were conducted in 2018., Main Outcome Measures: Study ineligibility, and reasons for exclusion (contraindications for nicotine patch use, serious mental illness [SMI, eg, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia], alcohol dependence or illicit drug use, current tobacco treatment, attendance barriers [eg, transportation], and other concerns [eg, aggressive, intoxicated, disruptive, visibly ill])., Results: Of 1,206 individuals screened, 36% were ineligible. The most frequent reasons were SMI (28%), alcohol dependence or drug use (10%), and attendance barriers (7%). Ineligibility was greater among African Americans (42%) and Hispanics (37%), compared with Whites (24%; P<.001). Compared with African Americans and Hispanics, Whites were more likely to be excluded for single reasons, including attendance barriers, and medical conditions (P<.05). African Americans were more than twice as likely as Whites to be excluded for 3 or more reasons (12% vs 5% respectively, P<.05)., Conclusions: A notable proportion of smokers were ineligible for this RCT, with SMI as the greatest single cause. Racial/ethnic minorities were more likely to be excluded, with African Americans deemed ineligible for multiple reasons. Findings have implications for RCT generalizability, addressing tobacco disparities and health equity., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: None declared.

Objective: Smoking tobacco cigarettes after a cancer diagnosis increases risk for several serious adverse outcomes. Thus, patients can significantly benefit from quitting smoking. Electronic cigarettes are an increasingly popular cessation method. Providers routinely ask about combustible cigarette use, yet little is known about use and communication surrounding e-cigarettes among patients with cancer. This study aims to describe patterns, beliefs, and communication with oncology providers about e-cigarette use of patients with cancer., Methods: Patients with cancer (N = 121) who currently used e-cigarettes were surveyed in a cross-sectional study about their patterns and reasons for use, beliefs, and perceptions of risk for e-cigarettes, combustible cigarettes, and nicotine replacement therapies. Patient perspectives on provider communication regarding e-cigarettes were also assessed., Results: Most participants identified smoking cessation as the reason for initiating (81%) and continuing (60%) e-cigarette use. However, 51% of patients reported current dual use of combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and most patients reported never having discussed their use of e-cigarettes with their oncology provider (72%). Patients characterized e-cigarettes as less addictive, less expensive, less stigmatizing, and less likely to impact cancer treatment than combustible cigarettes (Ps < .05), and more satisfying, more useful for quitting smoking, and more effective at reducing cancer-related stress than nicotine replacement therapies (Ps < .05)., Conclusions: Patients with cancer who use e-cigarettes have positive attitudes toward these devices and use them to aid in smoking cessation. This study also highlights the need for improved patient-provider communication on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

In previous research using timeline follow-back methods to closely monitor drinking and related variables over the first year of college (9 months), we showed that drinking varied considerably over time in accord with academic requirements and holidays. In a new community sample (N = 576) of emerging adults (18- and 19-year-olds who reported having begun drinking prior to recruitment), we used similar methods to compare drinking patterns in college and noncollege individuals over a full calendar year (including summer). To reduce the extreme distortion in computations of average drinking over restricted time spans (i.e., 1 week) that arise because large numbers of even regular drinkers may not consume any alcohol, we analyzed data using recently developed two-part latent growth curve modeling. This modeling distinguished consumption levels from numbers of individuals drinking in a given period. Results showed that drinking levels and patterns generally did not differ between college and noncollege drinkers, and that both groups responded similarly to even those contexts that may have seemed unique to one (i.e., spring break). We also showed that computation of drinking amounts without accounting for "zero drinkers" could seriously distort estimates of mean drinking on some occasions; for example, mean consumption in the total sample appeared to increase on Thanksgiving, whereas actual average consumption for those who were drinking diminished.

The reliability and validity of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRPS) was examined in a noninstitutionalized offender sample of mixed gender and race. Adequate alpha coefficients were obtained for the total sample and across gender and race. The SRPS was compared to measures of trait anxiety and passive avoidance errors. SRPS total, primary, and secondary scores were positively and significantly correlated with trait anxiety and passive avoidance (commission) errors, but not omission errors. Employing hierarchical regression models, no anxiety, gender, or ethnic effects were found. Intelligence confounded the relationship between psychopathic traits and passive avoidance errors. Findings provide tentative support of the SRPS as a valid measure of psychopathy.