Primed for Health: Future Thinking Priming Decreases Delay Discounting.

OBJECTIVE: Delay discounting, the propensity to devalue delayed rewards, has robust predictive validity for multiple health behaviors and is a new therapeutic target for health behavior change. Priming can influence behaviors in a predictable manner. We aimed to use the Future Thinking Priming task, administered remotely, to reliably decrease delay discounting rates. METHODS: In this pre-post randomized control group design, participants completed multiple delay discounting measures at baseline; then, 2 weeks later, they were randomized to Future Thinking Priming or Neutral Priming conditions. We hypothesized that Future Thinking Priming would significantly decrease delay discounting rates accounting for baseline delay discounting rates and time in repeated measures analyses. RESULTS: Participants randomized to Future Thinking Priming (N = 783) demonstrated significantly lower delay discounting rates post-intervention than those randomized to Neutral Priming (N = 747) on multiple delay discounting measures and magnitudes. CONCLUSIONS: A single administration of Future Thinking Priming produces statistically reliable reductions in delay discounting rates. The task is brief, can be administered remotely, and is highly scalable. If found to support behavior change, the task might be disseminated broadly to enhance evidence-based behavior change interventions. Future research must determine optimal exposure patterns to support durable health behavior change.

Cognitive, Behavioral, and Situational Influences on Relapse to Smoking After Group Treatment for Tobacco Dependence.

Socioeconomic disparities in treatment failure rates for evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment are well-established. Adapted cognitive behavioral treatments are extensively tailored to meet the needs of lower socioeconomic status (SES) smokers and dramatically improve early treatment success, but there is little understanding of why treatment failure occurs after a longer period of abstinence than with standard treatment, why early treatment success is not sustained, and why long-term treatment failure rates are no different from standard treatments. We sought to understand the causes of treatment failure from the perspective of diverse participants who relapsed after receiving standard or adapted treatment in a randomized control trial. We used a qualitative approach and a cognitive-behavioral framework to examine themes in responses to a semi-structured post-relapse telephone interview. The primary causes of relapse were familiar (i.e., habit, stress, unanticipated precipitating events). The adapted treatment appeared to improve the management of habits and stress short-term, but did not adequately prepare respondents for unanticipated events. Respondents reported that they would have benefited from continued support. New therapeutic targets might include innovative methods to reduce long-term treatment failure by delivering extended relapse prevention interventions to support early treatment success. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02785536.

Preventing relapse to smoking with transcranial magnetic stimulation: Feasibility and potential efficacy.

Many smokers attempt to quit every year, but 90% relapse within 12 months. Converging evidence suggests relapse is associated with insufficient activation of the prefrontal cortex. Delay discounting rate reflects relative activity in brain regions associated with relapse. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC) increases cortical excitability and reduces delay discounting rates, but little is known about feasibility, tolerability, and potential efficacy for smoking cessation. We hypothesized that 8 sessions of 20Hz rTMS of the LDLPFC combined with an evidence-based self-help intervention will demonstrate feasibility, tolerability, and potential efficacy in a limited double-blind randomized control trial. Smokers (n=29), abstinent for 24h, motivated to quit, and not using cessation medications, were randomized to active 20Hz rTMS at 110% of Motor Threshold or sham stimulation that replicated the look and sound of active stimulation. Stimulation site was located using the 6cm rule and neuro-navigation. Multiple clinical, feasibility, tolerability, and efficacy measures were examined. Active rTMS decreased delay discounting of $100 (F (1, 25.3694)=4.14, p=.05) and $1000 (F (1, 25.169)=8.42, p<.01), reduced the relative risk of relapse 3-fold (RR 0.29, CI 0.10-0.76, Likelihood ratio χ2 with 1 df=6.40, p=.01), increased abstinence rates (active 50% vs. sham 15.4%, Χ2 (df=1)=3.80, p=.05), and increased uptake of the self-help intervention. Clinical, feasibility, and tolerability assessments were favorable. Combining 20Hz rTMS of the LDLPFC with an evidence-based self-help intervention is feasible, well-tolerated, and demonstrates potential efficacy.

Improving tobacco dependence treatment outcomes for smokers of lower socioeconomic status: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based treatments for tobacco dependence are significantly less effective for smokers of lower socioeconomic status which contributes to socioeconomic disparities in smoking prevalence rates and health. We aimed to reduce the socioeconomic gradient in treatment outcomes by systematically adapting evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral treatment for tobacco dependence for diverse lower socioeconomic smokers. METHODS: Participants were randomized to adapted or standard treatment, received six 1-h group treatment sessions, and were followed for six months. We examined the effectiveness of the adapted treatment to improve treatment outcomes for lower socioeconomic groups. RESULTS: Participants (n=227) were ethnically, racially, and socioeconomically diverse. The adapted treatment significantly reduced the days to relapse for the two lowest socioeconomic groups: SES1: M=76.6 (SD 72.9) vs. 38.3 (SD 60.1) days to relapse (RR=0.63 95% CI, 0.45, 0.88, p=0.0013); SES2: M=88.2 (SD 67.3) vs. 40.1 (SD 62.6 days to relapse (RR=0.57 95% CI, 0.18, 0.70, p=0.0024). Interactions between socioeconomic status and condition were significant for initial abstinence (OR=1.26, 95% CI 1.09, 1.46, p=0.002), approached significance for 3-month abstinence (OR=0.90, 95% CI 0.80, 1.01, p<0.071), and were not significant for 6-month abstinence (OR=0.99 95% CI 0.88, 1.10, p=0.795). No significant differences in long-term abstinence were observed. CONCLUSION: Systematic adaption of evidence-based treatment for tobacco dependence can significantly improve initial and short-term treatment outcomes for diverse lower socioeconomic smokers and reduce inequities in days to relapse. Novel methods of providing targeted extended support are needed to improve long-term outcomes.