The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Smoking Among Vulnerable Populations.

AIM: While accumulating evidence suggests that people modified their smoking during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it remains unclear whether those most at risk for tobacco-related health disparities did so. The current study examined changes in smoking among several vulnerable smoker populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed in 2020 to 709 adults with socioeconomic disadvantage, affective disorders, or opioid use disorder who participated in a previous study investigating the effects of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes on smoking. Current smoking status and rate, and adoption of protective health behaviors in response to the pandemic (eg social distancing, mask wearing) were examined. RESULTS: Among 332 survey respondents (46.8% response rate), 84.6% were current smokers. Repeated measures ANOVA showed that current cigarettes/day (CPD) was higher during COVID than pre-COVID (12.9 ± 1.0 versus 11.6 ± 1.0; p < .001). Most respondents had adopted protective health behaviors to prevent infection (>79% for all behaviors). More than half indicated that they were still leaving their homes specifically to buy cigarettes (64.6%) and were buying more packs per visit to the store (54.5%) than pre-COVID. Individuals unemployed at the time of the survey experienced greater increases in CPD (from 11.4 ± 1.4 to 13.3 ± 1.4, p = .024) as did those with higher levels of anxiety (from 11.5 ± 1.1 to 13.6 ± 1.1, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in this sample of adults from vulnerable populations, even while most adopted protective health measures to prevent infection. Unemployment and anxiety might identify those at greatest risk for increases in tobacco use. IMPLICATIONS: Individuals from populations especially vulnerable to smoking might be at risk for greater harm from cigarette smoking during times of pandemic-related stress. Public health interventions are warranted to ameliorate increases in smoking among these populations. Special attention should be paid to those experiencing unemployment and high anxiety.

A review of research on cigarette smoking in Preventive Medicine in recognition of the journal's 50th anniversary.

This report reviews the literature on cigarette smoking published in Preventive Medicine over the past 50 years. The goal is twofold. First, to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of Preventive Medicine and its role in disseminating research on cigarette smoking by providing an abridged summary of smoking research published in the journal from inception through June 23, 2022. Second, to review experimental reports to identify contributions to innovations in tobacco control and regulatory efforts to reduce cigarette smoking. We searched PubMed using the search terms cigarette/cigarettes, tobacco products, smoking, smoking cessation, Preventive Medicine. Titles and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate, excluding reports not addressing cigarette smoking. Included reports were categorized by study type (original study, commentary, review). Experimental articles were assessed for impact using iCite, a National Institutes of Health web application that provides bibliometric information for articles in defined topic areas. The review identified 1181 articles on cigarette smoking: 1018 original studies (86.2%), 107 literature reviews (9.1%), and 56 commentaries (4.7%); 166 of the 1018 original studies (16%) were experimental reports. In the iCite analysis these 166 experimental articles received 6366 total citations, a mean (standard error) citation rate/article of 38.35 (±3.21) and mean relative citation ratio of 1.85 (±0.17) which is at the 73rd percentile for NIH-funded field- and time-normalized reports. Overall, this review demonstrates an ongoing and impactful contribution of Preventive Medicine to efforts to reduce cigarette smoking, the most preventable cause of premature death.

A Scoping Review of "Responsible Drinking" Interventions.

Public health groups, researchers, the beverage alcohol industry, and other stakeholders have promoted and applied the concept of "responsible drinking" for the past 50 years. However, little is known about the state of the existing responsible drinking evaluation research and its application to policy and practice. This project provides a scoping review of studies evaluating responsible drinking interventions. Two primary research questions guided this investigation: (1) To what extent have authors attempted to define the concept of responsible drinking while evaluating responsible drinking interventions? and (2) What is the state of the responsible drinking intervention evaluation literature? We retrieved 49 peer-reviewed articles that evaluated interventions designed to promote "responsible drinking." Four articles provided, or attempted to provide, an explicit definition of responsible drinking; these four definitions lacked consensus. The existing responsible drinking interventions varied considerably in terms of the messages they attempted to convey (e.g., avoid binge drinking, use protective behavioral strategies, stick to relatively safe drinking limits), again suggesting lack of consensus. We observed greater consensus concerning the approach to evaluating responsible drinking interventions: studies typically recruited college students to complete brief, well-controlled experiments and measured potential predictors of drinking behavior (e.g., attitudes, expectancies, intentions) rather than actual drinking behavior. We discuss limitations of this methodological approach and the need for greater consensus regarding the concept of responsible drinking.

Correction to: Gambling Research and Funding Biases.

Unfortunately, the original publication contains errors. The authors would like to correct the errors.

Gambling Research and Funding Biases.

A recent systematic review of the responsible gambling research suggests that there are no significant differences between gambling industry and non-industry funded research with regard to research design and outcomes. This study empirically synthesizes the outcomes of a larger sample of the scientific gambling literature to determine the generalizability of these original results. Our goal was to determine the extent to which funding sources might differentially influence characteristics of research design and outcomes. We conducted a comprehensive review of 18 research databases and examined studies published between January 2008 and August 2018. For four gambling-related journals, we reviewed all of the available studies. For 14 addiction-related journals, we examined only studies that examined gambling-related outcomes. To be included in this study, publications had to be quantitative and include a clear gambling-related hypothesis. After retrieving 1731 gambling studies, we applied the inclusion criteria and retained 720 studies for our final analytic sample. We used hypothesis confirmation and funding source information to determine the presence or absence of funding bias. Gambling industry funded studies were no more likely than studies not funded by the gambling industry to report either confirmed, partially confirmed, or rejected hypotheses. Nonetheless, studies funded by the gambling industry were more likely than other types of funding sources to include a conflict of interest statement. Studies with disclosed funding sources were more likely than those with undisclosed funding sources to include a conflict of interest statement. These findings highlight the importance of transparency and disclosure during research dissemination.

Psychiatric comorbidity among first-time and repeat DUI offenders.

Driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances is a serious public health concern. Previous research has shown that psychiatric comorbidity is more prevalent for repeat offenders than the general population, and that first-time offenders exhibit elevated rates of psychiatric comorbidity, but few studies have directly compared first-time and repeat DUI offenders. The current study compares psychiatric comorbidity among repeat and first-time DUI offenders. First-time and repeat DUI offenders completed the screener module of the Computerized Assessment and Referral System (CARS), adapted from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI: Kessler & Ustun, 2004), to measure potential psychiatric comorbidity. For 16 of 19 psychiatric disorders, repeat DUI offenders were more likely to screen positive during their lifetime compared with first-time DUI offenders. Similarly, repeat DUI offenders were more likely to screen positive during the past year for 11 of 16 assessed psychiatric disorders. Overall, repeat DUI offenders screened positive for an average of 6.3 disorders during their lifetime, compared to first-time offenders who screened positive for an average of 3.7 disorders. Repeat DUI offenders also screened positive for more past-year disorders (M = 3.3) than first-time offenders (M = 1.9). Compared to first-time offenders, repeat DUI offenders evidence more severe and pervasive psychiatric comorbidity. Further research is necessary to determine whether psychiatric comorbidity among first-time offenders directly predicts re-offense. If so, screening for mental health issues among first-offenders could provide valuable information about how best to allocate resources for these offenders.