跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT05210608
NCT05210608已完成不适用

Remember to Abstain: Assessment of Working Memory Training on Delay Discounting in Low-SES Cigarette Smokers

University of Kansas Medical Center2 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 13 人开始时间: 2021年11月30日最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
13
试验地点
2
主要终点
Delay Discounting

研究概览

简要总结

Despite widespread awareness of significant negative health consequences, cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the US (Creamer et al., 2019; Jamal, 2018). Moreover, the highest rate of smoking and heaviest burden of smoking-related illness occurs among low-socioeconomic status (SES) individuals relative to higher SES groups (Businelle et al., 2010; Clegg et al., 2009). Low SES individuals are also 40% less likely to succeed in quitting smoking when they attempt to do so (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health, 2014). One potential explanation for the disparity in rate of smoking and successful quit attempts may be differences in individual rates of delay discounting (DD), i.e., the degree to which rewards loses their value as the delays to their receipt increase (Odum, 2011). A proposed way to reduce steep DD and, potentially, substance use has been computer training for working memory, which has shown favorable results in a sample of individuals with stimulant dependence (Bickel et al., 2011) and substance use broadly (Felton et al., 2019), with the latter even showing decreases in cigarette smoking in a subset of the sample.

详细描述

The highest rate of smoking and heaviest burden of smoking-related illness occurs among low-SES individuals (Businelle et al., 2010; Clegg et al., 2009). One explanation for this disparity may be differences in individual rates of DD, which have been showed to be reduced with working memory training. (Bickel et al., 2011; Felton et al., 2019). Given the low cost of administering working memory training, such an intervention may be favorable for low-SES populations to improve smoking cessation outcomes.

DD has significant associations with:

Cigarette smoking (smokers tend to have higher rates of DD compared to non-smokers; Bickel et al., 1999);

Smoking treatment outcome (individuals who remained smoke free after a smoking cessation intervention had lower DD compared to those who didn't; González-Roz et al., 2019; Krishnan-Sarin et al., 2007; MacKillop & Kahler, 2009; Yoon et al., 2007); SES (individuals with lower education and income have higher DD rates compared to those who are more educated and affluent; de Wit et al., 2007; Reimers et al., 2009).

An innovative way to reduce DD that has been proposed is via working memory (WM) training. WM refers to one's capacity to hold information while engaging in complex mental tasks, including reasoning, comprehension, and learning (Baddeley, 2010). Previous research has shown that DD and WM correlate negatively (Shamosh et al., 2008), that individuals with higher DD rates show neural deficits in WM (Herting et al., 2010), and that acute nicotine abstinence is associated with WM deficits (Mendrek et al., 2006; Patterson et al., 2010). Furthermore, previous studies targeting WM to reduce DD have shown favorable results in a sample of individuals with stimulant dependence (Bickel et al., 2011) and substance use broadly (Felton et al., 2019), with the latter even showing decreases in cigarette smoking in a subset of the sample.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Na
干预模型
Single Group
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
None (Participant)

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • 未提供

排除标准

  • 未提供

结局指标

主要结局

Delay Discounting

时间窗: Baseline, Post-treatment, 1 month follow up

Delay Discounting (DD) was measured via an established computerized binary choice task in which participants choose between an amount of money available immediately and larger amount of money available after a specified delay (1 day to 25 years). A computerized algorithm adjusts the immediately available reward across seven trials to determine an indifference point (k) for each amount/delay pairing. Indifference points are then used to calculate a rate of delay discounting for a $50, $200, $1,000 "larger later" sum. Larger scores mean greater delay discounting. While there is no strict minimum or maximum k-value, but in practical research settings, typical k-values often range from close to 0 for individuals who discount delayed rewards very slowly to values above 1 for those who heavily discount delayed rewards. There is no strict lower or upper bound, but values can be extremely high (above 1) if an individual very strongly prefers immediate rewards.

Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB): Number of Total Cigarettes Smoked Per Week

时间窗: Baseline, Post-treatment, 1 month follow up

The Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) for cigarette smoking is a self-report method used to assess an individual's smoking behavior over a specified period and specified as one week for this study. In this method, individuals are guided to recall their daily cigarette use by referencing events, routines, and cues that help them accurately track their smoking patterns. They are asked to document the number of cigarettes smoked each day, which provides a detailed, day-by-day account of their smoking habits. This data was then be summed to give a weekly total cigarettes smoked per week. The TLFB approach is valued for its reliability and ability to capture fluctuations in smoking behavior over time.

Carbon Monoxide Levels

时间窗: Baseline, Post-treatment, 1 month follow up

Participant reports of abstinence will be verified by expired carbon monoxide (\< 6 ppm cutoff for stated abstinence). CO levels are collected via a CO monitor.

Working Memory

时间窗: Baseline, Post-treatment, 1 month follow up

Working memory was assessed by adding the scores of 3 different working memory measures: 1) the total achievement score in the Tower of Hanoi, 2) the total recall score of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test- Revised and 3) the total scaled score of the Letter Number Sequencing. These measures are commonly used to assess working memory. In this study, the composite score of all measures ranged between 36 and 89 with higher scores representing greater working memory,

次要结局

未报告次要终点

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (2)

Loading locations...

相似试验