Former Smoker Using the Harmless Cigarette So You Dont Start Smoking Again

Health Psychol Res. 2021; ix(i): 24506.

Impact of a soft tip nicotine-free harmless cigarette as office of a smoking cessation program with psychological support and varenicline: an integrated workplace smoking cessation intervention

Marilena Maglia

¹Eye of Excellence for the Acceleration of Damage Reduction (COEHAR), Academy of Catania, Italy

Pasquale Caponnetto

²Center of Excellence for the Dispatch of Harm Reduction (COEHAR) and the Section of Educational Sciences, University of Catania, Italy

Riccardo Polosa

³Center of Excellence for the Dispatch of Harm Reduction (COEHAR) and the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Italy

Cristina Russo

³Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (COEHAR) and the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Italy

Giuseppe Santisi

⁴Department of Educational Science, University of Catania, Italy

Received 2021 Jun 1; Accepted 2021 Jun 2.

Abstract

Cigarette consumption in the general population has shown a sustained pass up over the past 20 years, merely despite this, it is essential to monitor consumption among smokers at their workplace. There is an clan between cigarette addiction and work-related stressors, with high prevalence rates for smokers, at least double those of other adults. This two-group randomized clinical trial compared the 12-week combined event of psychological support and varenicline associated with the utilize or not of a nicotine-free inhaler with a soft mouthpiece (QuitGo™) on the 4 to 24-week cessation rate in enrolled smokers to a smoking abeyance programme promoted by our inquiry group. The results of the logistic model analysis showed that the likelihood of quitting successfully at week 24 was significantly higher in the QuitGO™ group than in the control group for participants with high behavioral dependence every bit assessed by Glover-Nilsson Smoking Behavioral Questionnaire-GN-SBQ (OR = 8.55; CI at 95% = 1.75-43.20). The data presented suggest that the soft tip nicotine-free harmless cigarette may be helpful for smokers and those with work-related stress symptoms who recognize the need to have a gesture in the traditional cigarette smoking ritual.

Keywords: work-related stress, smoking gesture, working, addiction, smoking abeyance

INTRODUCTION

Although studies on abeyance paths for smokers in their workplaces are increasing,1,2 the effects of the grouping of lifestyle factors (mainly unhealthy diet, lack of physical activeness, alcohol consumption) with smoking, therefore, need further inquiry.3

To appointment, therefore, at that place is a strong association betwixt smoking and risky lifestyles in the workplace.

These findings are potentially helpful for directing intervention efforts regarding smoking cessation in professional settings,iii bearing in mind, nevertheless, some crucial caveats: the abeyance procedure itself produces withdrawal symptoms, which include a multifariousness of disorders (depressed mood, anxiety, nervousness, restlessness, irritability, fatigue, and sleepiness); these are virtually pronounced in the days immediately following cessation and more often than not return to baseline levels within one calendar month of continued abstinence.iv

The treatment of cigarette addiction, shorter and more than pragmatic than the more durable and circuitous treatments of other addictions, is based on the essential components of this approach. It consists of an integrated intervention consisting of individual or group cess, counseling (psycho-behavioral intervention), use of self-help information material, and possible pharmacotherapy (essentially nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, and bupropion), which closely accompanies the individual path and likewise supports group handling, every bit an integral part or is carried out externally as a parallel and coordinated intervention.v,half dozen

While the other tools are more defined and consolidated, the psycho-behavioral intervention component, which will be dealt with more in this article, needs more definition and investigation.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Many studies report a positive clan between smoking and psychological distress, with smoking rates increasing with illness severity linked to stressors.7,viii The association betwixt smoking and stress in the workplace can also be bidirectional: to alleviate the effects of stress, one could starting time smoking, but it has been observed that this behavior does not lead to improvements simply deterioration.nine Individuals experiencing piece of work-related stress and smokers have more significant nicotine withdrawal symptoms.10,11 Although smokers with high levels of stress accept like levels of motivation to quit smoking or even higher than those of smokers in the general population12,13 and they try to quit with similar rates,xiv the chances of successful abstinence at one month are thirty-50% lower for those with high levels of stress.xiv

These brief introductory notes immediately advise that in that location may be a stiff association betwixt cigarette consumption and workplace stress.

Since 1997, the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Wellness Promotion in the European Union has advocated systematic prevention interventions that involve both the surround and the individual.15,16 In practise, notwithstanding, it has been found that the concrete organizational wellness management strategies implemented by companies take focused on two continuously interacting factors:17

a) the set up of personal resource made available by workers regarding values, beliefs, attitudes, health practices followed by employees.

b) the ready of support, instrumental and psychosocial, that the piece of work organization makes available to them.

The activity of these two factors tends to materialize as a dynamic of continuous exchange:18 the more the personal resources (and the efforts produced by the workers) are recognized as counterbalanced and supported by the organization of work, the more the wellness of workers becomes a strategic objective of the organization, tending to reduce levels of work stress. This premise is cardinal if we reflect on the fact that most of the specialist literature on health in the workplace insists on the incidence of health costs borne by organizations equally a result of bad habits of workers and related individual risk factors (nutrition, obesity, lack of concrete activity, drug corruption, alcohol, and smoking),19 often ignoring the impact of work organization models and related managerial practices.

At this bespeak, a question emerges: what have managerial practices produced with the strategies to reduce tobacco consumption in the workplace, in the hypothesis that this habit is strictly correlated to work stress?

In 2003, the ILO Safework placed the attitudes and regulatory policies implemented internationally concerning smoke-free workplaces at the center of attending in its report.20 Likewise, in the same year, Smedslund and colleagues published a meta-analytical study of controlled trials of smoking abeyance practices in the workplace conducted in the 1990s compared to similar studies conducted in the previous decade.21 The meta-assay concluded that the effectiveness of the applied smoking reduction interventions did not extend beyond 12 months, attributing this upshot to methodological limits of the proposed procedures.

In 2005, a study conducted by Kouvonen and colleagues on 46 thousand workers operating in x municipalities and 21 Finnish hospitals aimed to verify the correlation between levels of smoking intensity and quality/remainder of effort/advantage promoted by the organization of work in their smoking harm prevention policies.22 The study, conducted based on the job strain model and the endeavour-reward imbalance model approaches,23,24 arrives at the disquisitional conclusion that greater smoking intensity was associated with a more significant imbalance betwixt attempt-reward, among smokers; in no longer smokers, the same imbalance raised the likelihood that they would return to smoking. The high work tension and the consequent increment in work-related stress, therefore, touch both the probability of relapse into habit and increasing smoking intensity, circumstances that lead to emphasizing the importance of the environmental context in the effectiveness of reduction strategies of smoking in the workplace.

That perceived stress in the workplace is an essential factor in increasing-reducing smoking intensity is further demonstrated by a report conducted in 2016 in 41 countries containing more than 217,000 participants.25 Inquiry conducted in Japan in the aforementioned catamenia confirmed that smoking reduction policies in the workplace are positively correlated with a general reduction in public health expenses and burdens and increased visitor productivity and organizational operation.26

In decision, it is well established that adult smoking rates have remained relatively stable in contempo years.27 Unfortunately, around 80% of smokers do not immediately quit.28,29 Agile cessation consecration interventions that promote smoking abeyance efforts among unmotivated smokers could profoundly impact public wellness fifty-fifty if efficacy is low.

Stress is positively associated with continued smoking and negatively associated with quitting.thirty Predictably, smokers who reported higher levels of negative mood and stress-related symptoms were less likely to quit than smokers with fewer stress-related disorders.ix

As previously advocated, however, corporate smoking reduction practices within the workplace must necessarily consider three aspects contributing to structuring a wide-ranging strategy. The methods aimed at reducing smoking intensity must be conceived within an organizational culture31 structured based on 2 major pillars: a climate of wellness and safety in which the efforts required of the workers with insured rewards; a recognition of the value and importance of personal resources such equally self-efficacy, resilience, quality, and density of social support, elements that deed every bit "mediators" between health promotion practices and work organization tools.

METHODS

Regular smokers of traditional cigarettes (≥ten cigarettes/day, for at least 1yrs) treated at their workplace (a medicine manufactory in Catania) were involved in the study. Participants with an exhaled breath carbon monoxide concentration (eCO) of ≥10 ppm were considered eligible for participation.

This study included a two-group randomized clinical trial to compare the effect of a nicotine-free inhaler with a soft mouthpiece (QuitGo™) on quit rates at 4 and 24 weeks in smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation program; smokers were randomized to receive or non a soft tip inhaler (Figure 1).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is healthpsychologyresearch_2021_9_1_24506_62159.jpg

Pharmacologic therapies were prescribed over 12 weeks according to manufacturer guidelines. Participants were prescribed varenicline at 1mg twice daily. Psychological support was delivered at each visit.

At the beginning visit, social and demographic factors and accurate smoking history were annotated. Scoring of the self-evaluation of depression was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).32 Physical dependence and behavioral cigarette dependence were measured by Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD)33 and Glover-Nilsson Smoking Behavioral Questionnaire (GN-SBQ),34 respectively.

Participants were advised to quit smoking and were asked to set a quit engagement within the next vii days. Smokers were prescribed varenicline 2 mg/day for 12 weeks, and they were assigned to either an active or a command grouping. Smokers of the agile group received a complimentary supply of a soft tip nicotine-free (mint aroma) QuitGO™ and instructed about its usage. Smokers were and then invited to volume their follow-up appointment within one week from the quit date. Over the weeks, support has been offered for smoking participants, characterized by psychological support and telephone contacts through WhatsApp to encourage participants' motivation. The levels of eCO were carried out at each visit with the function of checking the objective smoking forbearance.

During the follow-ups of weeks iv and 24, the participants were followed by an independent researcher. This selection was made to avoid possible contamination with respect to the noesis of the written report participants' basic characteristics and grouping allocation.

Subjects who reported quitting smoking and had eCO <10 levels were referred to equally quitters. Those who did not meet these criteria were considered to exist failures or relapsers.

Continuing smokers and relapsers were put in a smoking reference group to compare the written report measures after smoking abeyance between groups. Success rates were defined every bit 24-week success rate - 24WSR (calculated as the ratio between a number of eCO-verified 24-week quitters over the number of smokers setting a quit appointment) and the iv-calendar week success rate - 4WSR (calculated as the ratio between the number of eCO-verified 4-week quitters over the number of smokers setting a quit date).35,36

The sample size calculation for this study, based on the expected abeyance rates from a previous smoking cessation study,37 indicates that 63 subjects are required to have 80% power with a ii-sided 0.05 significance level test to find a difference of at to the lowest degree 10% quit rate between study groups. Allowing for a conservative attrition rate of 40% at our establishment, the target number of participants was increased to a total of 120.

In the master analyses, 4WSR and 24WSR were computed by excluding the proportion of subjects lost to follow-up (per-protocol assay). As secondary analyses and for comparison purposes, 4WSR and 24WSR were also calculated by including all enrolled participants - assuming that all those individuals who volition exist lost to follow-up are classified as smoking cessation failures (intention-to-treat analysis). One-way assay of variance (ANOVA) was used to test between-group differences for normally distributed variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test was used for nonparametric variables. χ2 statistics were used to calculate the significance of observed differences in distribution at 4 and 24 calendar week quit rates. A logistic regression model was used to assess the relative adventure of affect base QuitGO™ utilise in influencing the quit rate at 4 and 24 weeks: Odds ratios (OR) and 95% conviction intervals (CI) were calculated and adjusted for the following confounders: gender, age, FTCD, N. of pack/yrs, teaching level, cigarettes/day smoked at enrolment. Continuous variables were dichotomized using the following cut-off levels: historic period 45.5 yrs (range 23-69), FTCD 6; No. of pack/twelvemonth 48 (highest quartile of its distribution); instruction level thirteen yrs; cigarettes/twenty-four hour period at enrolment ten. A p level<0.05 was considered statistically meaning. The statistical analysis was conducted by an independent biostatistician who was unaware of the group resource allotment of the study participants.

The study complied with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent. The study was conducted in agreement with the ethical norms gear up by the Italian National Psychological Clan. A cohort of workers carried out this written report within the framework of occupational health surveillance following the Italian Law (no. 81/2008).

RESULTS

120 smokers of traditional cigarettes who experience work-related stress assessed by the Karasek Chore Content Questionnaire (JCQ) were enrolled in the study (Table 1). No significant difference was found betwixt study groups for all the variables under investigation at the starting time visit. Sixty-nine subjects had a depression degree of behavioral cigarette dependence (GN-SBQ ≤22), and 51 presented a high level (GN-SBQ >22). At four-week, 12/60 participants (twenty%) were lost at follow-upward in QuitGO™ group and 16/60 (26.6%) in control group (p=0.366, χ2). A 24-week, smokers who were lost at follow-up accounted for 15/60 (25%) in the QuitGO™ group and 18/60 (30%) in the reference group (p=0.501, χ2). Afterwards, out of 120 participants, 92 (76.half dozen%) and 87 participants (72.5%) completed the 4-week and 24-week visits, respectively.

Tabular array one. Smokers' characteristics at baseline.

	QuitGO^™ grouping	Reference group	p-value
Gender (Grand/F, No.)	39/21	40/20	-^†
Age (yrs, hateful±SD)	46.1±ten.7	46.7±9.4	0.123^#
Smokeyears (mean±SD)	28.ix±11.7	29.three±7.nine	0.151^#
Cigarette/twenty-four hours at enrolment (No., median and IQ)	26.3 (20.0-thirty.0)	24.5 (18.0-30.0)	0.295^§
No. of pack/yr (median and IQ)	37.8 (25.5-48.7)	34.3 (25.ane-47.five)	0.367^§
Exhaled CO (ppb, mean±SD)	30.4±15.viii	28.iii±12.4	0.234^#
Age at initiation (yrs, mean±SD)	17.4±5	xvi±5	0.626^#
BDI (mean±SD)	22.8±4.3	22.5±3	0.677^#
FTCD (median and IQ)	seven.0 (half dozen.0-eight.0)	six.5 (iv.five-7.0)	0.051^§
GN-SBQ (median and IQ)	20.0 (fifteen.0-33.0)	20.0 (xv.0-32.0)	0.848^§

†χ2test; ^#one-way ANOVA; §Mann-Whitney U-exam

Continuous variables are presented as ways ± standard deviations (SD) for unremarkably distributed variables or as medians and interquartile ranges (IQ) for nonparametric variables.

Quit rates at four-calendar week and 24-calendar week are shown in Table 2. For the whole sample, no significant deviation was constitute in quit rates between the QuitGO™ grouping and the reference group at any fourth dimension. However, when smokers were separately evaluated based on their GN-SBQ score at baseline, a significant difference was found in the frequency distribution of smoking cessation quit rates: in smokers with high GN-SBQ (i.e., people with substantially high stiff psycho-behavioral dependence), the quit rate in the QuitGO™ group was significantly college than in the command group. The results of the logistic model analysis showed that the probability of successful quitting at week 24 was significantly higher in the QuitGO™ group than in the control group for participants with high GN-SBQ scores (OR = viii.55; 95%CI = 1.75-43.20).

Table 2. Smoking cessation quit rates at week-4 and week-24.

	No QuitGO™		QuitGO™
Per-protocol analysis (No., %)	calendar week-4	week-24	week-4	calendar week-24	p-value week-4	p-value week-24
Overall sample	22/44 (50%)	17/42 (41.five%)	24/48 (fifty%)	20/45 (45.5%)	0.991	0.701
Low GN-SBQ (≤22)	13/24 (54.one%)	12/22 (54.five%)	eight/28 (28.5%)	iv/26 (15.3%)	0.056	0.002
Loftier GN-SBQ (>22)	9/20 (45.nine%)	5/20 (25.0%)	16/twenty (81.5%)	xvi/19 (84.2%)	0.021	0.0001
Intention-to-treat analysis (No., %)
Overall sample	22/60 (36.6%)	17/threescore (28.three%)	24/60 (40%)	20/threescore (33.3%)	0.703	0.503
Low GN-SBQ (≤22)	xiii/34 (38.2%)	12/34 (35.two%)	8/35 (22.8%)	4/35 (xi.iv%)	0.133	0.016
High GN-SBQ (>22)	9/26 (34.6%)	5/26 (nineteen.ii%)	16/25 (64%)	xvi/25 (64%)	0.019	0.001

The bulk of smokers in the QuitGO™ group were satisfied with using this tool, principally for its anti-stress activity. Well-nigh 80% of participants declared that placing the QuitGO™ in their mouth was useful to distract them from cigarettes peckish.

Discussion

This is the first study to investigate the effect of calculation a soft tip nicotine-gratis harmless cigarette every bit function of a psychologically supported and varenicline quit workplace smoking program in smokers with work-related stress symptoms. No pregnant difference in smoking cessation rates was observed between smokers using the device and the reference group for the overall sample. This study made it possible to discover some positive effects related to the utilize of the investigated products, considered to exist at zero risks, which significantly reduces tobacco dependence, especially for those related to behavioral aspects.

The results of the logistic model assay showed that the likelihood of successfully quitting at week 24 was significantly higher in the QuitGO™ group than in the control group for participants with high GN-SBQ scores. The data presented suggest that QuitGO™ may exist helpful for those smokers, such every bit those with work-related stress symptoms, who recognize the need to accept a gesture in the traditional cigarette smoking ritual, particularly in contexts where smoking is incommunicable because it is prohibited, equally the workplace.

The literature confirms the results of another written report.35 Other inhalers immune the smokers to cope with the demand to compensate for "craving" used in a traditional cigarette smoking cessation programme.

The novelty of this study, conducted at a workplace, compared to the previous ones, focuses its attention on a sample of participants who have symptoms of work-related stress that typically have a higher percentage of smoking relapse, which is made upwardly of deficient internal resources, understood as problem-solving skills, social skills and other types of skills related to the ability to manage frustration or other emotions.38

CONCLUSIONS

An important fact that emerged from this research is that smokers who have used QuitGO™ were satisfied with its product. It allows the smoker to avoid the constant need to respect the typical gestures of those who fume traditional cigarettes. These data will enable us to understand how important it is for a smoker to appreciate the need for gestures without necessarily having the satisfaction given past nicotine.39 A suggestion for time to come studies will be to broaden the study sample past observing multiple workplaces and dissimilar professional figures.

Conflicts of Interest

RP has received lecture fees and research funding from Pfizer, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, CV Therapeutics, NeuroSearch A/S, Sandoz, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Duska Therapeutics, and Wood Laboratories. He has too served as a consultant for Pfizer, Inc., Global Health Brotherhood for treatment of tobacco dependence, CV Therapeutics, NeuroSearch A/S, Boehringer Ingelheim, Duska Therapeutics, Wood Laboratories, ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Manufacture Trade Association, in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland), Health Diplomat (consulting company that delivers solutions to global health problems with special emphasis on impairment minimization), and Pharmacielo. RP was awarded an Investigator-Initiated Study award program established by Philip Morris International in 2017, just subsequently resigned from the role of Principal Investigator in 2018, earlier the trial began. Lecture fees from a number of European EC industry and trade associations (including Fédération Interprofessionnelle de la VAPE in France and Federazione Italiana Esercenti Svapo Elettronico in Italy) were straight donated to vaper advancement no-profit organizations. RP is the Founder of the Center of Excellence for the acceleration of Impairment Reduction at the Academy of Catania (CoEHAR), which has received a grant from Foundation for a Smoke Gratuitous World to develop and carry out eight research projects. RP is as well currently involved in the post-obit pro bono activities: scientific advisor for LIAF, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (Italian acronym for Italian Anti Smoking League) and Chair of the European Technical Committee for standardization on Requirements and test methods for emissions of electronic cigarettes (CEN/TC 437; WG4). PC is paid by the University of Catania as an external part-fourth dimension researcher and adjunct professor of clinical, addiction, and general psychology. He has been affiliated to the CoEHAR since December 2019 in a pro bono part. He is coauthor of a protocol paper supported by an Investigator-Initiated Study award program established by Philip Morris International in 2017. The other authors have no disharmonize of interests to declare.

References

i. Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Floresta D, et al. A randomized controlled trial to compare group motivational interviewing to very brief advice for the effectiveness of a workplace smoking cessation counseling intervention. J Addict Dis. 2020;38(4):465-474. doi:10.1080/10550887.2020.1782564 [PubMed]
2. Moher M, Hey Chiliad, Lancaster T. Workplace interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003;(2). doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003440 [PubMed]
3. Sonia H, Jihene 1000, Imed H, et al. Clustering of chronic disease risk factors with tobacco smoking habits amidst adults in the work identify in Sousse, Tunisia. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;24:220. doi:10.11604/pamj.2016.24.220.7163 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Transmission of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Author; 2013. doi:x.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
five. Fiore MC et al. A Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(ii):158-176. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.04.009 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
half dozen. Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005;(2). doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001292.pub2 [PubMed]
7. Farrell K, Howes S, Taylor C, et al. Substance misuse and psychiatric comorbidity: An overview of the OPCS National Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. Addictive Behaviors. 1998;23(6):909-918. doi:10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00075-half dozen [PubMed]
8. Meltzer H, Gill B, Hinds Yard, Petticrew Chiliad. OPCS Surveys of Psychiatric Morbidity in United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland,Report 6: Economic Activity and Social Operation of Residents With Psychiatric Disorders. HMSO; 1996. doi:x.5255/UKDA-SN-3585-1
nine. Munafò MR, Araya R. Cigarette smoking and depression: a question of causation. Br J Psychiatry. 2010;196(6):425-426. doi:x.1192/bjp.bp.109.074880 [PubMed]
x. Breslau Due north, Kilbey MM, Andreski P. Nicotine withdrawal symptoms and psychiatric disorders: findings from an epidemiologic report of immature adults. AJP. 1992;149(4):464-469. doi:10.1176/ajp.149.four.464 [PubMed]
11. Weinberger AH, Desai RA, McKee SA. Nicotine withdrawal in U.S. smokers with current mood, feet, alcohol use, and substance utilise disorders. Drug and Booze Dependence. 2010;108(1-2):7-12. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.004 [PMC costless article] [PubMed]
12. Acton SG, Kunz JD, Wilson 1000, Hall SM. The construct of internalization: conceptualization, measurement, and prediction of smoking treatment outcome. Psychol Med. 2005;35(three):395-408. doi:x.1017/s0033291704003083 [PubMed]
13. Buckner JD, Farris SG, Zvolensky MJ, et al. Dysphoria and smoking amongst handling-seeking smokers: the role of smoking-related inflexibility/avoidance. The American Journal of Drug and Booze Corruption. 2015;41(1):45-51. doi:ten.3109/00952990.2014.927472 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
xiv. Cooper J, Borland R, McKee SA, Yong HH, Dugué PA. Depression motivates quit attempts only predicts relapse: Differential findings for gender from the International Tobacco Control Study. Addiction. 2016;111(eight):1438-1447. doi:ten.1111/add.13290 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. European Network for Workplace Health Promotion. Healthy Employees in Good for you Organizations. Good Practice in Workplace Health Promotion (WHP) in Europe. Federal Association of Visitor Wellness Insurance Funds; 1999.
sixteen. Kuhn Thou, Beermann B, Henke Due north. Salubrious Employees in Healthy Organizations: The European Network for Workplace Health Promotion. WHIP in Europe. Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2001.
17. Shain Grand. Wellness promotion in the workplace: framing the concept; reviewing the prove. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2004;61(vii):643-643585. doi:x.1136/oem.2004.013193 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
eighteen. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Practical Psychology. 2001;86(3):499-512. doi:ten.1037/0021-9010.86.three.499 [PubMed]
19. Goetzel RZ, Jacobson BH, Aldana SG, Vardell Yard, Yee L. Health care costs of worksite health promotion participants and non-participants. Periodical of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 1998;xl(4):341-346. doi:10.1097/00043764-199804000-00008 [PubMed]
20. Hakata C, ed. Workplace Smoking. Working Paper: A Review of National and Local Practical and Regulatory Measures. ILO-SafeWork; 2004.
21. Smedslund G, Fisher KJ, Boles SM, Lichtenstein E. The effectiveness of workplace smoking cessation programmes: a meta-assay of recent studies. Tobacco Control. 2004;13(2):197-204. doi:10.1136/tc.2002.002915 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed]
22. Kouvonen A. Work stress, smoking status, and smoking intensity: an observational study of 46 190 employees. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005;59(ane):63-69. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.019752 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed]
23. Karasek R. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979;24:285-308.
24. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Task Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an musical instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial chore characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1998;iii(4):322-355. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322 [PubMed]
25. Stubbs B, Veronese N, Vancampfort D, et al. Perceived stress and smoking across 41 countries: A global perspective across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):7597. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07579-w [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Suwa K, Flores NM, Yoshikawa R, Goto R, Vietri J, Igarashi A. Examining the clan of smoking with work productivity and associated costs in Nihon. Journal of Medical Economic science. 2017;20(9):938-944. doi:10.1080/13696998.2017.1352507 [PubMed]
27. CDC. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults—Us, 2005-2012. 2014;63(2):29-34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Velicer WF, Fava JL, Prochaska JO, Abrams DB, Emmons KM, Pierce JP. Distribution of smokers by phase in three representative samples. Preventive Medicine. 1995;24(iv):401-411. doi:10.1006/pmed.1995.1065 [PubMed]
29. Herzog TA, Blagg CO. Are virtually precontemplators contemplating smoking cessation? Assessing the validity of the stages of alter. Health Psychology. 2007;26(2):222-231. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.two.222 [PubMed]
thirty. Caponnetto P, Polosa R. Common predictors of smoking cessation in clinical practice. Respiratory Medicine. 2008;102(8):1182-1192. doi:ten.1016/j.rmed.2008.02.017 [PubMed]
31. Kava CM, Parker EA, Baquero B, et al. Associations Between Organizational Culture, Workplace Wellness Climate, and Employee Smoking at Smaller Workplaces. Tob Use Insights. 2019;12:1179173X1983584. doi:10.1177/1179173x19835842 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed]
32. Wang YP, Gorenstein C. Cess of depression in medical patients: a systematic review of the utility of the Beck Depression Inventory-2. Clinics. 2013;68(9):1274-1287. doi:ten.6061/clinics/2013(09)15 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Fagerström Thousand, Eissenberg T. Dependence on tobacco and nicotine products: a case for product-specific assessment. Nicotine & Tobacco Enquiry. 2012;14(11):1382-1390. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts007 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed]
34. Glover ED, Nilsson F, Westin A, Glover PN, Laflin MT, Persson B. Developmental history of the Glover-Nilsson smoking behavioral questionnaire. American journal of wellness behavior. 2005;29(five):443-455. doi:10.5555/ajhb.2005.29.5.443 [PubMed]
35. Caponnetto P, Cibella F, Mancuso S, Campagna D, Arcidiacono G, Polosa R. Consequence of a nicotine-free inhalator as part of a smoking-cessation programme. European Respiratory Journal. 2011;38(five):1005-1011. doi:10.1183/09031936.00109610 [PubMed]
36. Caponnetto P, DiPiazza J, Cappello GC, Demma S, Maglia M, Polosa R. Multimodal Smoking Cessation in a Real-Life Setting: Combining Motivational Interviewing With Official Therapy and Reduced-Risk Products. Tob Use Insights. 2019;12. doi:10.1177/1179173x19878435 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Chaiton M, Diemert 50, Cohen JE, et al. Estimating the number of quit attempts it takes to quit smoking successfully in a longitudinal accomplice of smokers. BMJ Open. 2016;half-dozen(vi):e011045. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011045 [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed]
38. Davis JR, Glaros AG. Relapse prevention and smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors. 1986;11(2):105-114. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(86)90034-i [PubMed]
39. Shiffman S, Kirchner TR. Cigarette-by-cigarette satisfaction during ad libitum smoking. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2009;118(two):348-359. doi:ten.1037/a0015620 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed]

Articles from Health Psychology Enquiry are provided here courtesy of Open Medical Publishing

bennetteenesuatims2001.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8567756/