Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Behavioral measures of impulsive behavior include the dimensions of behavioral disinhibition, decision-making, and lapses of attention. These behaviors are associated with a range of risky activities during adolescence, including cigarette smoking; however, few studies have evaluated their associations with tobacco treatment outcomes. The current study examined the relationship between impulsive behavior and contingency management treatment outcomes for adolescent smokers.
Methods: Data from two contingency management smoking cessation trials were combined (N = 189 adolescents). Participants provided breath carbon monoxide (CO) samples with incentives delivered contingent (i.e., active treatment [AT] condition) or non-contingent (i.e., control treatment [CT] condition) on CO level. Dimensions of impulsive behavior were assessed pre- and post-treatment using the Go/Stop Task, a measure of delay discounting, a continuous performance task, while self-reported impulsivity was assessed with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-Adolescent. Relationships between impulsive behavior and treatment outcomes (efficacy and adherence) were assessed using linear mixed effects models.
Results: Participants in the AT condition had significantly lower program CO levels at each treatment phase. Delay discounting in the AT condition predicted CO levels, with those discounting the most lowering their breath CO levels the least. Delay discounting also predicted program adherence across both conditions.
Conclusions: Delay discounting may be the most relevant dimension of impulsive behavior to predict outcomes for adolescent smokers completing CM programs, both in terms of successful reductions in smoking and program adherence. Suggestions are made to reduce the effects of delay discounting for adolescent smokers using this treatment approach.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425739 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.031 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!