Cited by 114Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Immediate hedonic response to smoking lapses: relationship to smoking relapse, and effects of nicotine replacement therapy

Open access
Shiffman, Saul, Ferguson, Stuart G., Gwaltney, Chad J.·2006·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Objective and rationale Smoking lapses represent an important juncture between smoking cessation and relapse. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been shown to decrease the risk of progression from lapse to relapse. We hypothesized that this effect might be mediated via decreases in reinforcement from smoking lapses.Method We assessed 169 subjects who lapsed during treatment in a double-blind placebo-controlled study of high-dose (35 mg) nicotine patch. Following their first lapse, using an electronic diary, subjects recorded the amount they smoked, and rated the pleasantness and satisfaction ("hedonic rating") and the aversiveness of smoking. Subjects were then followed and assessed for further lapses and relapses.Results Subjects who smoked more during the first lapse had greater risk of progression [second lapse: hazard ratio (HR)=1.16, confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.32; relapse: HR=1.22, CI=0.97-1.54]. Subjects with higher hedonic ratings of the first lapse also had a greater risk of progression to the second lapse (HR=1.08, CI=1.02-1.14) and to relapse (HR=1.26, CI=1.11-1.41). Aversive ratings had no bearing on progression. As expected, active treatment reduced the risk of both a second lapse (HR=0.54, CI=0.39-0.78) and a relapse (HR=0.22, CI=0.11-0.45). Importantly, however, NRT had no effect on hedonic ratings, amount smoked during the first lapse, or aversive ratings.Conclusions Hedonic response to an initial lapse predicted progression to relapse, but this did not mediate the effect of NRT on progression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-005-0175-4

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shiffman, S., Ferguson, S. G., & Gwaltney, C. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Shiffman, Saul
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2005-11-11
Volume
184
Issue
3-4
Pages
608-618
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2042204665
Cited by
114
References
52
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 06084, R01DA006084)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
smoking lapse, smoking relapse, nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine patch, hedonic response, reinforcement, aversiveness, smoking cessation, relapse risk prediction
MeSH terms
Administration, Cutaneous, Adult, Affect, Attitude, Behavior Therapy, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nicotine, Reinforcement, Psychology, Set, Psychology, Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Risk Assessment, Secondary Prevention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review