Which Method of Assessing Depression and Anxiety Best Predicts Smoking Cessation: Screening Instruments or Self-Reported Conditions?
Which Method of Assessing Depression and Anxiety Best Predicts Smoking Cessation: Screening Instruments or Self-Reported Conditions?
复制标题
哪种评估抑郁和焦虑的方法最能预测戒烟：筛查仪器或自我报告状况？
DOI：
10.1093/ntr/ntaa099
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bricker,JonathanB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Watson,NoreenL;Heffner,JaimeeL;Mull,KristinE;McClure,JenniferB;Bricker,JonathanB
情感障碍和症状（ADS）是戒烟几率较低的预测因素。然而，目前尚不清楚哪种评估ADS的方法最能预测戒烟。这项研究比较了一组ADS筛查工具与一个自我报告的预测戒烟问题。在那些自我报告的ADS，我们还研究了如果一个额外的问题，参与者是否认为条件（S）可能会干扰他们的能力，以戒烟增加预测效用的单项question.MethodsParticipants（N= 2637）参加了一个随机对照试验的网络吸烟治疗完成了一个电池的五个ADS筛选仪器，并回答了一个单项问题有ADS。那些在单项问题上自我报告积极的人也被问及他们的干扰信念。主要结果是完整的情况下，自我报告的30天点患病率禁欲在12 months.ResultsBoth评估方法显着预测停止。在一组测试中，筛查阳性的≥一个ADS与戒烟的几率比筛查不阳性的低23%相关（p= 0.023）;那些在单一项目上自我报告阳性的人戒烟的几率比自我报告没有心理健康状况的人低39%（p<0.001）。两种评估方法的受试者工作特征曲线下面积值相似（p= 0.136）。添加干扰信念问题的单项评估显着增加了区域下的接收器工作特征曲线值（p= 0.042）。ConclusionsThe单项问题评估ADS有尽可能多的预测有效性，并可能更多，比电池的筛选工具识别参与者的风险未能戒烟。增加一个问题的干扰信念显着增加了预测效用的单项question.ImplicationsThis是第一项研究表明，一个单项问题评估ADS至少有尽可能多的预测有效性，并可能更多，比电池的验证筛选工具识别吸烟者戒烟失败的最高风险。这项研究还表明，增加一个关于干扰信念的问题，显着增加了一个关于心理健康状况的单一自我报告问题的预测效用。这项研究的结果可用于决定如何在烟草治疗环境中评估ADS。
IntroductionAffective disorders and symptoms (ADS) are predictive of lower odds of quitting smoking. However, it is unknown which approach to assessing ADS best predicts cessation. This study compared a battery of ADS screening instruments with a single, self-report question on predicting cessation. Among those who self-reported ADS, we also examined if an additional question regarding whether participants believed the condition(s) might interfere with their ability to quit added predictive utility to the single-item question.MethodsParticipants (N= 2637) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of web-based smoking treatments completed a battery of five ADS screening instruments and answered a single-item question about having ADS. Those with a positive self-report on the single-item question were also asked about their interference beliefs. The primary outcome was complete-case, self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months.ResultsBoth assessment approaches significantly predicted cessation. Screening positive for ≥ one ADS in the battery was associated with 23% lower odds of quitting than not screening positive for any (p= .023); those with a positive self-report on the single-item had 39% lower odds of quitting than self-reporting no mental health conditions (p< .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the two assessment approaches were similar (p= .136). Adding the interference belief question to the single-item assessment significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (p= .042).ConclusionsThe single-item question assessing ADS had as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than the battery of screening instruments for identifying participants at risk for failing to quit smoking. Adding a question about interference beliefs significantly increased the predictive utility of the single-item question.ImplicationsThis is the first study to demonstrate that a single-item question assessing ADS has at least as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than a battery of validated screening instruments for identifying smokers at highest risk for cessation failure. This study also demonstrates adding a question about interference beliefs significantly adds to the predictive utility of a single, self-report question about mental health conditions. Findings from this study can be used to inform decisions regarding how to assess ADS in the context of tobacco treatment settings.