Reprint of: Clustering of behavioral economic biases in decision-making and risk for cigarette smoking and other substance use in women and men.

BACKGROUND: Low loss aversion (LA) and high delay discounting (DD) are behavioral-economic decision-making biases that independently predict cigarette smoking and other risky substance use. Here we examine (1) whether low-LA and high-DD co-occur, (2) does co-occurrence increase the odds of current smoking and other substance use compared to only low-LA, high-DD, or neither; and (3) potential gender differences in these associations. METHOD: Data are from five studies with U.S. adults who currently smoked or never-smoked cigarettes recruited using online convenience sampling matching on gender and education. Participants completed identical sociodemographic, substance use (cigarette, other drugs, alcohol), and LA (hypothetical 50-50 gambles) and DD (monetary-choice questionnaire) measures. LA and DD scores were dichotomized as low and high using Receiver-Operating-Characteristic Curve logistic regression. RESULTS: LA and DD each independently predicted substance use and with few exceptions were not influenced by gender. Low-LA compared to high-LA predicted two-fold greater odds of co-occurring high-DD (AOR = 2.120, 95%CI:1.749-2.571, p < .0001). Similarly, high-DD compared to low DD predicted two-fold greater odds of low-LA (AOR = 2.118, 95%CI:1.747-2.568, p < .0001). Among those with co-occurring low-LA and high-DD, odds of substance use were 5-10 times greater than those exhibiting neither, and 2-3 times greater than those exhibiting only low-LA or high-DD. CONCLUSIONS: Low-LA and high-DD cluster in women and men such that exhibiting one of these decision-making biases doubles the odds of exhibiting the other. These results demonstrate reliable clustering of low-LA and high-DD and a striking increase in risk for substance use relative to having only one or neither decision-making bias.

Clustering of behavioral economic biases in decision-making and risk for cigarette smoking and other substance use in women and men.

BACKGROUND: Low loss aversion (LA) and high delay discounting (DD) are behavioral-economic decision-making biases that independently predict cigarette smoking and other risky substance use. Here we examine (1) whether low-LA and high-DD co-occur, (2) does co-occurrence increase the odds of current smoking and other substance use compared to only low-LA, high-DD, or neither; and (3) potential gender differences in these associations. METHOD: Data are from five studies with U.S. adults who currently smoked or never-smoked cigarettes recruited using online convenience sampling matching on gender and education. Participants completed identical sociodemographic, substance use (cigarette, other drugs, alcohol), and LA (hypothetical 50-50 gambles) and DD (monetary-choice questionnaire) measures. LA and DD scores were dichotomized as low and high using Receiver-Operating-Characteristic Curve logistic regression. RESULTS: LA and DD each independently predicted substance use and with few exceptions were not influenced by gender. Low-LA compared to high-LA predicted two-fold greater odds of co-occurring high-DD (AOR = 2.120, 95%CI:1.749-2.571, p < .0001). Similarly, high-DD compared to low DD predicted two-fold greater odds of low-LA (AOR = 2.118, 95%CI:1.747-2.568, p < .0001). Among those with co-occurring low-LA and high-DD, odds of substance use were 5-10 times greater than those exhibiting neither, and 2-3 times greater than those exhibiting only low-LA or high-DD. CONCLUSIONS: Low-LA and high-DD cluster in women and men such that exhibiting one of these decision-making biases doubles the odds of exhibiting the other. These results demonstrate reliable clustering of low-LA and high-DD and a striking increase in risk for substance use relative to having only one or neither decision-making bias.

Reprint of: Examining U.S. disparities in smoking among rural versus urban women of reproductive age: 2002-2019.

OBJECTIVE: This study is part of a programmatic investigation of rural disparities in cigarette smoking examining disparities in smoking prevalence and for the first-time quit ratios among adult women of reproductive age (18-44 years), a highly vulnerable population due to risk for multigenerational adverse effects. METHODS: Data came from 18 years (2002-2019) of the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) among women (n = 280,626) categorized by rural-urban residence, pregnancy status, using weighted logistic regression models testing time trends and controlling for well-established sociodemographic predictors of smoking (race/ethnicity, education, income). Concerns regarding changes in survey methods used before 2002 and after 2019 precluded inclusion of earlier and more recent survey years in the present study. RESULTS: Overall smoking prevalence across years was greater in rural than urban residents (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.11; 95%CI, 1.07-1.15; P < .001) including those not-pregnant (AOR = 1.10; 1.07-1.14; P < .001) and pregnant (AOR = 1.29; 1.09-1.52; P < .001). Overall quit ratios across years were lower in rural than urban residents (AOR = 0.93; 0.87-0.99; P < .001) including those not-pregnant (AOR = 0.93; 0.88-1.00, P = .035) and pregnant (AOR = 0.78; 0.62-0.99; P = .039). Interactions of rural versus urban residence with study years for prevalence and quit ratios overall and by pregnancy status are detailed in the main text. CONCLUSIONS: These results support a longstanding and robust rural disparity in smoking prevalence among women of reproductive age including those currently pregnant and provides novel evidence that differences in smoking cessation contribute to this disparity further underscoring a need for greater access to evidence-based tobacco control and regulatory interventions in rural regions.

Examining U.S. disparities in smoking among rural versus urban women of reproductive age: 2002-2019.

OBJECTIVE: This study is part of a programmatic investigation of rural disparities in cigarette smoking examining disparities in smoking prevalence and for the first-time quit ratios among adult women of reproductive age (18-44 years), a highly vulnerable population due to risk for multigenerational adverse effects. METHODS: Data came from 18 years (2002-2019) of the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) among women (n = 280,626) categorized by rural-urban residence, pregnancy status, using weighted logistic regression models testing time trends and controlling for well-established sociodemographic predictors of smoking (race/ethnicity, education, income). Concerns regarding changes in survey methods used before 2002 and after 2019 precluded inclusion of earlier and more recent survey years in the present study. RESULTS: Overall smoking prevalence across years was greater in rural than urban residents (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.11; 95%CI, 1.07-1.15; P < .001) including those not-pregnant (AOR = 1.10; 1.07-1.14; P < .001) and pregnant (AOR = 1.29; 1.09-1.52; P < .001). Overall quit ratios across years were lower in rural than urban residents (AOR = 0.93; 0.87-0.99; P < .001) including those not-pregnant (AOR = 0.93; 0.88-1.00, P = .035) and pregnant (AOR = 0.78; 0.62-0.99; P = .039). Interactions of rural versus urban residence with study years for prevalence and quit ratios overall and by pregnancy status are detailed in the main text. CONCLUSIONS: These results support a longstanding and robust rural disparity in smoking prevalence among women of reproductive age including those currently pregnant and provides novel evidence that differences in smoking cessation contribute to this disparity further underscoring a need for greater access to evidence-based tobacco control and regulatory interventions in rural regions.

Moral injury among women military veterans and demand for cigarettes: A behavioral economic investigation using a hypothetical purchase task.

OBJECTIVES: Unlike the United States general population, veteran women - as opposed to veteran men - have greater smoking prevalence; yet, little is known regarding factors that influence smoking in veteran women. The purpose of this study was to begin examining the relationship between a psychological concept known as moral injury and demand for cigarettes among veteran women. METHODS: Veteran women who smoke (n = 44) were recruited for this cross-sectional study from Amazon MTurk, Reddit, and a veteran-serving non-profit organization in June-July 2023. Consenting participants received $2 for completing the cigarette purchase task (CPT), Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND), and the military version of the Moral Injury Symptom Scale (MISS-M-SF). We examined five CPT demand indices and calculated a modified exponential demand model stratified by moral injury severity status (i.e., probable vs. unlikely). RESULTS: Probable morally injured women exhibited significantly higher relative reinforcing value (RRV) for smoking than unlikely morally injured women (F1, 920 = 9.16, p = 0.003). Average cigarette consumption at $0 (i.e., Q0) was 48.56% higher (M = 22.24 vs. M = 13.55) in probable compared to unlikely morally injured women (p = 0.04, Hedge's g = 0.74). FTND scores were significantly correlated with Pmax (i.e., demand elasticity point) and Omax (i.e., maximum expenditure) values in both populations (rs = 0.42-0.68, ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary evidence of the relatively high RRV of smoking in morally injured veteran women. Continued research is needed to refine the characterization of this relationship.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): Frequency of use and smoking-cessation efforts among U.S. women of reproductive age.

OBJECTIVE: Reducing harm from combustible cigarette use among women of reproductive age (WRA) is critical given their potential vulnerability to multigenerational adverse impacts of cigarette smoking. Although electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are not approved smoking cessation aids in the US, many WRA who smoke report using ENDS to help quit smoking. Associations between ENDS use patterns and smoking-cessation efforts among US WRA remain unclear. METHODS: Using the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, we examined whether baseline (Wave 3 or 4) ENDS use frequency predicted (a) making a cigarette quit attempt (QA) and (b) successful quitting by follow-up (Wave 4 or 5, respectively) among WRA (N = 2834; 72.1% non-Hispanic White). RESULTS: Daily ENDS use predicted greater adjusted odds of making a QA than non-daily (AOR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.03, 2.59) and no ENDS use (AOR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.23, 3.14), and greater odds of successful smoking cessation than non-daily use (AOR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.31, 4.26). Daily ENDS use did not significantly improve odds of successful smoking cessation compared to no ENDS use (AOR = 1.62, 95% CI = 0.97, 2.69). Non-daily ENDS use did not significantly improve odds of making a QA (AOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.94, 1.56) and hindered successful smoking cessation compared to no ENDS use (AOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.48, 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that benefits of ENDS for smoking cessation in WRA may be greatest among those who use ENDS daily. WRA who choose to use ENDS to help quit would be well-informed by evidence that non-daily ENDS use may impede smoking cessation.

Sex differences in tobacco use, attempts to quit smoking, and cessation among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes: Longitudinal findings from the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study.

SIGNIFICANCE: A growing number of adults use more than one tobacco product, with dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes being the most common combination. Monitoring sex disparities in tobacco use is a public health priority. However, little is known regarding whether dual users differ by sex. METHODS: Data came from Waves 4-6 (12/2016-11/2021) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a US nationally-representative longitudinal survey. This analysis included current adult dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. We used weighted generalized estimating equations to assess the association between sex and (1) making a cigarette quit attempt (n = 1882 observations from n = 1526 individuals) and (2) smoking cessation (n = 2081 observations from n = 1688 individuals) across two wave pairs, adjusting for age, education, ethnicity, time-to-first cigarette after waking, and e-cigarette use frequency. RESULTS: Among US dual users, 14.1% (95% Confidence Intervals [Cl] = 11.9-16.4) of females and 23.4% (20.0-26.9) of males were young adults (aged 18-24), 11.7% (9.2-14.2) of females and 14.4% (11.6-17.2) of males had

Sex differences in tobacco use, attempts to quit smoking, and cessation among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes: Longitudinal findings from the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study.

SIGNIFICANCE: A growing number of adults use more than one tobacco product, with dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes being the most common combination. Monitoring sex disparities in tobacco use is a public health priority. However, little is known regarding whether dual users differ by sex. METHODS: Data came from Waves 4-6 (12/2016-11/2021) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a US nationally-representative longitudinal survey. This analysis included current adult dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. We used weighted generalized estimating equations to assess the association between sex and (1) making a cigarette quit attempt (n = 1882 observations from n = 1526 individuals) and (2) smoking cessation (n = 2081 observations from n = 1688 individuals) across two wave pairs, adjusting for age, education, ethnicity, time-to-first cigarette after waking, and e-cigarette use frequency. RESULTS: Among US dual users, 14.1% (95% Confidence Intervals [Cl] = 11.9-16.4) of females and 23.4% (20.0-26.9) of males were young adults (aged 18-24), 11.7% (9.2-14.2) of females and 14.4% (11.6-17.2) of males had

Substance use patterns, sociodemographics, and health profiles of harm reduction service recipients in Burlington, Vermont.

BACKGROUND: Understanding current substance use practices is critical to reduce and prevent overdose deaths among individuals at increased risk including persons who use and inject drugs. Because individuals participating in harm reduction and syringe service programs are actively using drugs and vary in treatment participation, information on their current drug use and preferred drugs provides a unique window into the drug use ecology of communities that can inform future intervention services and treatment provision. METHODS: Between March and June 2023, 150 participants in a harm reduction program in Burlington, Vermont completed a survey examining sociodemographics; treatment and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) status; substance use; injection information; overdose information; and mental health, medical, and health information. Descriptive analyses assessed overall findings. Comparisons between primary drug subgroups (stimulants, opioids, stimulants-opioids) of past-three-month drug use and treatment participation were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Most participants reported being unhoused or unstable housing (80.7%) and unemployed (64.0%) or on disability (21.3%). The drug with the greatest proportion of participants reporting past three-month use was crack cocaine (83.3%). Fentanyl use was reported by 69.3% of participants and xylazine by 38.0% of participants. High rates of stimulant use were reported across all participants independent of whether stimulants were a participant's primary drug. Fentanyl, heroin, and xylazine use was less common in the stimulants subgroup compared to opioid-containing subgroups (p < .001). Current- and past-year MOUD treatment was reported by 58.0% and 77.3% of participants. Emergency rooms were the most common past-year medical treatment location (48.7%; M = 2.72 visits). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate high rates of polysubstance use and the underrecognized effects of stimulant use among people who use drugs-including its notable and increasing role in drug-overdose deaths. Crack cocaine was the most used stimulant, a geographical difference from much of the US where methamphetamine is most common. With the increasing prevalence of fentanyl-adulterated stimulants and differences in opioid use observed between subgroups, these findings highlight the importance and necessity of harm reduction interventions (e.g., drug checking services, fentanyl test strips) and effective treatment for individuals using stimulants alongside MOUD treatment.

Behavior change, health, and health disparities 2023: Contingency management for treating substance use disorders and promoting health in vulnerable populations.

This Special Issue (SI) of Preventive Medicine is the 10th in a series on behavior change, health, and health disparities. This issue focuses on Contingency Management (CM), a highly efficacious behavior-change intervention for substance use disorders (SUDs) and other behavioral health conditions wherein patients receive material incentives (e.g., vouchers exchangeable for retail items) contingent on objectively verified behavior change. Despite substantial support for its efficacy, CM remains largely unavailable in U.S. community SUD treatment facilities and other healthcare settings. This is especially concerning regarding stimulant use disorder for which CM is the only reliably efficacious intervention in controlled studies and yet is unavailable to the vast majority of those in need. This SI details recent promising developments in efforts to surmount longstanding implementation obstacles while also detailing other promising advances from meta-analyses and controlled trials examining CM's efficacy in treating other difficult-to-treat problems including smoking among pregnant women and mothers of young children as well among those as those experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder, the promise of digital CM, and a potential new application in promoting adherence with SUD medications.

Contingency management interventions for abstinence from cigarette smoking in pregnancy and postpartum: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Contingency management is one of the most effective treatments for substance use disorders in not-pregnant people. The most recent quantitative review of its efficacy among pregnant and postpartum women who smoke cigarettes concluded with moderate certainty that those receiving contingent financial incentives were twice as likely to be abstinent compared with controls. We aimed to update and extend previous reviews. Five databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before December 2022 that assessed the effectiveness of incentives for abstinence from substance use. Data from trials of smoking abstinence were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model (restricted maximum likelihood). Results are reported as risk-ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022372291. Twelve RCTs (3136) pregnant women) were included. There was high certainty evidence that women receiving incentives were more likely to be abstinent than controls at the last antepartum assessment (12 RCTs; RR = 2.43, 95% CI 2.04-2.91, n = 2941, I2 = 0.0%) and moderate certainty evidence at the longest postpartum assessment while incentives were still available (five RCTs; RR = 2.72, 1.47-5.02, n = 659, I2 = 44.5%), and at the longest postpartum follow-up after incentives were discontinued (six RCTs; RR = 1.93, 1.08-3.46, n = 1753, I2 = 51.8%). Pregnant women receiving incentives are twice as likely to achieve smoking abstinence during pregnancy suggesting this intervention should be standard care for pregnant women who smoke. The results also demonstrate that abstinence continues into the postpartum period, including after incentives are discontinued, but more trials measuring outcomes in the postpartum period are needed to strengthen this conclusion.

Randomized clinical trial examining financial incentives for smoking cessation among mothers of young children and possible impacts on child secondhand smoke exposure.

This randomized clinical trial examined whether financial-incentives increase smoking cessation among mothers of young children and potential impacts on child secondhand-smoke exposure (SHSe). 198 women-child dyads were enrolled and assigned to one of three treatment conditions: best practices (BP, N = 68), best practices plus financial incentives (BP + FI, N = 63), or best practices, financial incentives, and nicotine replacement therapy (BP + FI + NRT, N = 67). The trial was completed in Vermont, USA between June 2015 and October 2020. BP entailed staff referral to the state tobacco quitline; financial incentives entailed mothers earning vouchers exchangeable for retail items for 12 weeks contingent on biochemically-verified smoking abstinence; NRT involved mothers receiving 10 weeks of free transdermal nicotine and nicotine lozenges/gum. Baseline, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 48-week assessments were conducted. Primary outcomes were maternal 7-day point-prevalence abstinence and child SHSe through the 24-week assessment with the 48-week assessment exploratory. Results were analyzed using mixed model repeated measures for categorical data. Odds of maternal abstinence were greater among mothers in BP + FI and BP + FI + NRT compared to BP at the 6- and 12-week assessments (ORs ≥ 7.30; 95% CIs: 2.35-22.71); only abstinence in BP + FI remained greater than BP at the 24-week assessment (OR = 2.95; 95% CIs: 1.06-8.25). Abstinence did not differ significantly between treatment conditions at the 48-week assesssment. There was a significant effect of treatment condition (F[2109] = 3.64, P = .029) on SHSe with levels in BP and BP + FI significantly below BP + FI + NRT (ts[109] ≥ -2.30, Ps ≤ 0.023). Financial incentives for smoking abstinence are efficacious for increasing maternal cessation but that alone was insufficient for reducing child SHSe. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT05740098.

Loss Aversion and Current, Former, and Never-Smoking Status.

INTRODUCTION: Loss aversion (LA) is a bias in decision-making wherein potential losses have a greater influence on choices than equivalent gains. Such a bias may protect individuals from harm. Consistent with this idea, lower LA has been measured in individuals who endorse current cigarette smoking as well as other substance use compared to controls matched on important sociodemographic variables (age, gender, and educational attainment). The goal of the present study was to systematically replicate and extend this association between LA and smoking status by comparing those meeting criteria for current-, former-, and never-smoking status. AIMS AND METHODS: In total, 984 individuals (N = 984) that endorsed current cigarette smoking (past 30-day use; n = 361), former-smoking (no past 30-day use, >100 cigarettes lifetime; n = 317), and never-smoking (no past 30-day use, <100 cigarettes lifetime; n = 306) were recruited using standard crowdsourcing methods and completed measures of LA (50-50 gambles) and delay discounting (DD) (monetary choice questionnaire), an important decision-making bias with an established relationship to cigarette-smoking status. RESULTS: Lower LA was observed in those endorsing current smoking compared to former smoking (t[952] = -9.57, Bonferroni corrected p < .0001), and never-smoking (t[952] = -3.99, Bonferroni corrected p = .0002). LA was also greater in former- compared to the never-smoking (t[952] = -5.26, Bonferroni corrected p < .0001). This pattern did not change when accounting for DD and sociodemographics. DD results replicated prior findings. CONCLUSIONS: The results support LA as a decision-making bias related to the risk of cigarette smoking and other substance use. Further research is needed to understand the causal contributions of LA and DD and their potential intersections. IMPLICATIONS: Low LA is a risk factor for cigarette smoking. This study reports higher LA among individuals that endorsed never-smoking and former-smoking status in comparison to those endorsing current cigarette smoking. LA may influence or be influenced by a change in smoking status.

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.

Behavior change, health, and health disparities 2022: Innovations in tobacco control and regulatory science to decrease cigarette smoking.

This Special Issue of Preventive Medicine (PM) is the 9th in a series on behavior change, health, and health disparities. This topic is critically important to improving population health. Unhealthy lifestyles including substance misuse, unhealthy food choices, physical inactivity, and non-adherence with medical regimens are important preventable causes of chronic disease and premature death. This year we focus on cigarette smoking, which continues to have devastating health impacts including more than 8 million annual premature deaths globally and 480,000 in the U.S. where most of the research reported in this Special Issue was conducted. While the introduction of new tobacco products into the marketplace like electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) demands attention, it is essential that we remain focused on the enormous challenges involved in eliminating cigarette smoking. This Special Issue examines innovations in tobacco control and regulatory science aimed towards reducing cigarette smoking. Discussion of new tobacco products is largely limited to their role in this overarching aim of reducing combusted cigarette use. We discuss important innovations in tobacco control (e.g., digital text-based interventions, ENDS-assisted cessation, financial incentives) and regulatory science (e.g., nicotine reduction in cigarettes, flavor bans). Throughout, attention is given to the important topic of disparities in terms of understanding the uneven adverse impacts of cigarette smoking and efforts to eliminate it, and the critical importance of researching vulnerable populations. Across these topics we have recruited contributions from accomplished investigators, clinicians, and policymakers to acquaint readers with recent advances while also noting knowledge gaps and unresolved challenges.

Intersections between environmental reward availability, loss aversion, and delay discounting as potential risk factors for cigarette smoking and other substance use.

Behavioral theory suggests that density of environmental rewarding activities and biases in decision making influence risk for substance use disorder (SUD). To better understand intersections of these potential risk factors, this study examined whether environmental reward predicted smoking status or other drug use and whether such associations were independent of two decision-making biases known to predict SUD risk, namely loss aversion and delay discounting. Individuals that reported current daily cigarette smoking (n = 186; >10 cigarettes/day) and never-smoking (n = 241; <100 cigarettes lifetime) were recruited with standard crowdsourcing methods. Participants answered questions on alcohol and other drug use. Environmental reward was assessed using the Reward Probability Index (RPI), and loss aversion (LA) and delay discounting (DD) using a gamble-acceptance task and monetary choice questionnaire, respectively. Associations of RPI, LA, and DD with cigarette smoking, alcohol use, other drug use, and combinations of co-use were examined with logistic regression controlling for sociodemographic variables (educational attainment, gender, age). Low RPI (odds ratio[OR] = 0.97, p = .006), low LA (OR = 1.22, p < .001), and high DD (OR = 1.12, p = .03), were each independently associated with increased risk for cigarette smoking, as well as other substance use, and use combinations. We saw no evidence that RPI was significantly influencing associations between LA and DD with smoking status or other substance use. Finally, RPI, but not LA or DD, was significantly associated with depressed mood and sleep disturbance. These results provide new evidence on associations of RPI with smoking status and other substance use while further documenting independent associations between LA and DD and those outcomes.

Economic analysis of financial incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy and postpartum.

Higgins and colleagues' recently-completed randomized controlled trial and pooled data with 4 related trials of smoking cessation in pregnant women in Vermont (USA) showed that abstinence-contingent financial incentives (FI) increased abstinence over control conditions from early pregnancy through 24-weeks postpartum. Control conditions were best practices (BP) alone in the recent trial and payments provided independent of smoking status (noncontingently) in the others. This paper reports economic analyses of abstinence-contingent FI. Merging trial results with maternal and infant healthcare costs from all Vermont Medicaid deliveries in 2019, we computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and compared them to established thresholds. The healthcare sector cost (±standard error) of adding FI to BP averaged $634.76 ± $531.61 per participant. Based on this trial, the increased probability per BP + FI participant of smoking abstinence at 24-weeks postpartum was 3.17%, the cost per additional abstinent woman was $20,043, the incremental health gain was 0.0270 ± 0.0412 QALYs, the ICER was $23,511/QALY gained, and the probabilities that BP + FI was very cost-effective (ICER≤$65,910) and cost-effective (ICER≤$100,000) were 67.9% and 71.0%, respectively. Based on the pooled trials, the corresponding values were even more favorable-8.89%, $7138, 0.0758 ± 0.0178 QALYs, $8371/QALY, 98.6% and 99.3%, respectively. Each dollar invested in abstinence-contingent FI over control smoking-cessation programs yielded $4.20 in economic benefits in the recent trial and $11.90 in the pooled trials (very favorable benefit-cost ratios). Medicaid and commercial insurers may wish to consider covering financial incentives for smoking abstinence as a cost-effective service for pregnant beneficiaries who smoke. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02210832.

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.

Leveraging the cigarette purchase task to understand relationships between cumulative vulnerabilities, the relative reinforcing effects of smoking, and response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes.

We examined if the relative-reinforcing effects of smoking increase with greater cumulative vulnerability and whether cumulative vulnerability moderates response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Participants were 775 adults from randomized clinical trials evaluating research cigarettes differing in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg/g). Participants were categorized as having low (0-1), moderate (2-3), or high (≥4) cumulative vulnerability. Vulnerabilities included rural residence, opioid use disorder, affective disorder, low educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, and physical disability. We used the cigarette purchase task (CPT) to assess the relative-reinforcing effects of participants' usual-brand cigarettes at baseline and study cigarettes during the 12-week trial. The CPT is a behavioral-economic task wherein participants estimate likely smoking (demand) over 24 h under escalating cigarette price. Demand is characterized by two factors: Amplitude (demand volume at zero/minimal price) and Persistence (demand sensitivity to price). Greater cumulative vulnerability was associated with greater demand Amplitude (F[2709] = 16.04,p < .0001) and Persistence (F[2709] = 8.35,p = .0003) for usual-brand cigarettes. Demand Amplitude for study cigarettes increased with increasing cumulative vulnerability (F[2619] = 19.59, p < .001) and decreased with decreasing nicotine content ([4879] = 5.45, p < .001). The only evidence of moderation was on demand Persistence (F[8867] = 2.00,p = .04), with larger reductions at the 0.4 mg/g compared to 15.8 mg/g doses among participants with low compared to moderate or high cumulative vulnerability. The relative-reinforcing effects of smoking clearly increase with greater cumulative vulnerability. Reducing nicotine content would likely reduce demand Amplitude across cumulative-vulnerability levels but reductions in demand Persistence may be more limited among those with greater cumulative vulnerability.

Using an experimental tobacco marketplace to pilot test the substitutability of JUUL e-cigarettes and other alternative nicotine and tobacco products for conventional cigarettes among vulnerable populations.

The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace (ETM) is an online research marketplace where increasing the cost of cigarettes is used to investigate the substitutability of other fixed-price tobacco products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The ETM is useful for modeling effects of potential policy changes on use of various concurrently available products. To our knowledge, the ETM has not been used to investigate substitutability of newer generation e-cigarettes or populations at increased risk for smoking, heavy smoking, nicotine dependence, and smoking-attributable adverse effects. In the current pilot study, participants were 30 adult daily smokers with socioeconomic disadvantage or comorbid psychiatric conditions (substance-use disorder or mental illness). In each session, cigarette prices increased ($0.12, $0.25, $0.50, $1.00. and $2.00 per cigarette) while prices for alternative products remained fixed. Across three ETM sessions, either all products, all products except little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), or all products except ENDS (JUUL e-cigarettes) were available. Linear regression was performed on individual participant data using log-transformed cigarette price to determine demand and substitution. Cigarette demand decreased as price increased across sessions (significantly non-zero slopes, ps ≤ 0.0001). When all products were available, ENDS substitution increased as cigarette price increased (significantly non-zero slope, p = .016). When LCCs were unavailable, ENDS again were a significant substitute (p = .008). When ENDS were unavailable, LCCs did not substitute (ps ≥ 0.48). In all sessions, participants rarely purchased other products (e.g., snus). Overall, ENDS were the most robust substitute for cigarettes, further underscoring the potential importance of ENDS availability on the impact of tobacco regulatory policies.