Comparison of methods for measurement of smoking behavior: Mouthpiece-based computerized devices versus direct observation
Comparison of methods for measurement of smoking behavior: Mouthpiece-based computerized devices versus direct observation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ntr/ntp083
复制
发表时间：
2009-07-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Eissenberg, Thomas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blank, Melissa D.;Disharoon, Steven;Eissenberg, Thomas
了解影响烟草使用的因素通常涉及通过基于吹嘴的计算机化设备对吸烟行为进行详细评估（即，烟雾地形）。研究表明，使用吸嘴来评估地形可能会改变自然吸烟行为。本研究旨在比较使用基于口腔器的方法（即桌面和便携式计算机设备）和不使用口腔器的方法（即直接观察）的地形测量。共有30名吸烟者（>= 15支全口味或淡味香烟/天）参加了6次拉丁方排序的2.5小时实验，在此之前至少有8小时客观验证的烟草戒烟（一氧化碳水平< 10 ppm）。在每个阶段，参与者都可以随意抽四支香烟（自有品牌或Merit超轻香烟），有的是传统香烟，有的是使用台式或便携式设备。会议是用数码摄像机录下来的。所有三种测量方法都对经常报告的品牌和约引起的变化敏感。地形测量方法之间差异不大（跨方法，所有r值均为> .68），并且每种方法都是可靠的（每个条件下的跨场地，大多数r值为> .78）。相比之下，参与者认为使用任何一种基于吸嘴的设备都可以改变他们吸烟行为的各个方面（例如，增加吸烟难度，降低享受，改变香烟味道；p < 0.05）。虽然直接观察方法可能是测量某些吸烟特征的最佳方法，但这种方法所带来的后勤挑战可能会限制其实用性。总之，这些结果表明，基于口腔的设备为研究人员检查吸烟地形提供了一个方便和有用的工具。
Understanding factors that influence tobacco use often involves detailed assessment of smoking behavior (i.e., puff topography) via mouthpiece-based, computerized devices. Research suggests that the use of a mouthpiece to evaluate topography may alter natural smoking behavior. This study was designed to compare topography measurement using mouthpiece-based methods (i.e., desktop and portable computerized devices) to methods that do not use a mouthpiece (i.e., direct observation).A total of 30 smokers (>= 15 full-flavor or light cigarettes/day) participated in six Latin square-ordered, 2.5-hr experimental sessions that were preceded by at least 8 hr of objectively verified tobacco abstinence (carbon monoxide level < 10 ppm). Each session consisted of participants smoking four cigarettes (own brand or Merit ultra-light) ad libitum, conventionally or using a desktop or portable device. Sessions were videotaped using a digital camcorder.All three measurement methods were sensitive to oft-reported brand- and bout-induced changes. Topography measurement differed little between methods (across methods, all r values > .68), and each method was reliable (across bouts within each condition, most r values > .78). In contrast, participants perceived the use of either mouthpiece-based device to alter aspects of their smoking behavior (e.g., increased smoking difficulty, reduced enjoyment, altered cigarette taste; p < .05), relative to video recording only.Although direct observational methods may be optimal for measuring certain smoking characteristics, logistical challenges posed by this method likely limit its usefulness. Together, these results suggest that mouthpiece-based devices offer a convenient and useful tool for researchers examining smoking topography.