Next Article in Journal
How and When May Technostress Impact Workers’ Psycho-Physical Health and Work-Family Interface? A Study during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy
Previous Article in Journal
The FRISK (Fracture Risk)—A New Tool to Indicate the Probability of Fractures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 2
10.3390/ijerph20021257
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perceived Stress and Smoking Cessation: The Role of Smoking Urges

by
María Barroso-Hurtado
*,
Daniel Suárez-Castro
,
Carmela Martínez-Vispo
,
Elisardo Becoña
and
Ana López-Durán
Smoking and Addictive Disorders Unit, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 1257; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021257
Submission received: 8 December 2022 / Revised: 28 December 2022 / Accepted: 6 January 2023 / Published: 10 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Mental Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite the fact that perceived stress is related to abstinence smoking outcomes, no studies have investigated the mediational effect of specific tobacco-related variables on this relationship. This study aimed to explore the indirect effect of perceived stress on abstinence at the end of treatment through smoking urges. The sample comprised 260 treatment-seeking smokers (58.5% female; Mage = 46.00; SD = 11.1) who underwent psychological smoking cessation treatment. The brief version of the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS14) were used. Mediation analyses were conducted in which smoking urges and their dimensions were potential mediators in the relationship between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of treatment. The results showed a non-significant direct effect of perceived stress on abstinence. However, a significant indirect effect was found through smoking urges (QSU-total) and, specifically, through smoking urges associated with the expectation of negative affect relief (QSU-Factor 2). A non-significant indirect effect through smoking urges related to the expectation of tobacco use as a pleasurable experience (QSU-Factor 1) was also found. Analyzing possible mediator variables could contribute to understanding previous conflicting data. These findings point to potential interest in including treatment components targeting perceived stress and smoking urges to improve the effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments.

1. Introduction

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide [1], being responsible for eight million deaths per year [2]. Smoking contributes to numerous physical illnesses, including cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases [3], and mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia [4]. Research has shown that smoking cessation could reverse, at least in part, these negative tobacco-related effects [5,6,7]. For example, quitting smoking has been shown to be related to improvements in mental health [8]. According to Hajek et al. [9] and Streck et al. [10], abstinence is associated with lower levels of stress and anxiety. Additionally, Kim et al. [11] found that successful quitters had lower odds of feeling stress than those who failed to quit. Other studies have shown that quitting smoking is associated with improvements in depressive symptoms [12,13] and may even decrease suicide risk [14].
There are numerous effective smoking cessation treatments [15]. For instance, behavioral interventions targeting smoking cessation have been shown to improve quit rates at a 6-month follow-up compared to usual/standard care, no intervention, and less intensive or alternative interventions (e.g., interventions with equal or lower intensity, different providers, or different theoretical bases) [5]. Recent studies have identified certain psychological variables that influence the effectiveness of these smoking cessation treatments, such as depression [16], anxiety [17], and self-efficacy [18]. Given the importance of these factors, it is important to continue investigating which personal variables influence whether people succeed in quitting.
One personal variable associated with smoking behavior is perceived stress, defined as the thoughts or feelings a person has about the level of stress they are experiencing during a specific period [19]. The relationship between perceived stress and smoking-related variables has been analyzed in different populations [20,21,22,23,24]. However, limited research has examined the relationship between perceived stress and smoking cessation treatment outcomes, and the results are inconsistent. Previous studies have found that higher baseline perceived stress in adult smokers was a significant predictor of lower abstinence rates at a 1-year follow-up in women but not in men after receiving physician’s advice, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, and telephone counseling [25]. Moreover, al’Absi et al. [26] found an association between higher perceived stress at baseline and higher relapse likelihood after participants received one screening and orientation session for quitting. However, other studies have not found a significant association between baseline perceived stress and smoking cessation outcomes [27,28]. Using a placebo treatment combined with a smoking cessation guide and brief counseling sessions, Manning et al. [28] found a non-significant association between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of treatment and at a 6-month follow-up. Similarly, Hooper and Kolar [27] found a non-significant association between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of treatment and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups after cognitive behavioral treatment combined with transdermal nicotine patches. Considering this variety of results, it is necessary to investigate this relationship further and examine which factors may have influenced these findings.
One possible variable that might help clarify the relationship between perceived stress and quitting smoking is smoking urges or cravings, defined as a subjective experience of the desire to consume tobacco [29,30]. This variable has been extensively studied in relation to smoking behavior. For instance, stronger smoking urges are associated with a greater likelihood and faster progression to smoking [31], greater nicotine dependence [32,33], quit attempt failures [34], lower abstinence rates at the end of smoking cessation treatment [35], and elevated relapse rates [36,37,38].
Tiffany and Drobes [29] proposed that smoking urge is a multidimensional construct that includes the desire to smoke due to the expectation of a pleasurable experience and the desire to smoke associated with the expectation of relief from negative affect through smoking. Few studies have analyzed the differential influence of smoking urge dimensions on smoking cessation outcomes, and their findings vary. For instance, Allen et al. [39] conducted a study with women and found that those with higher scores on both smoking urge dimensions on their quit day had a higher risk of relapse within 30 days after quitting. However, Toll et al. [40] found that greater decreases in the desire to smoke scores only associated with the expectation of tobacco use as a pleasurable experience predicted relapse. Non-significant effects were found in the smoking urge related to the expectation of negative affect relief. Finally, in a study conducted in an experimental setting, Heffner et al. [41] found that short-term abstinent smokers with alcohol dependence showed stronger cravings associated with the expectation of negative affect relief only compared to smokers without alcohol dependence. In summary, most existing studies examining the effects of smoking urge dimensions on treatment outcomes have focused on abstinence maintenance or relapse risk. Minimal research has been conducted to investigate the effect of these dimensions on abstinence achievement after treatment.
Regarding the relationship between perceived stress and the urge to smoke, some studies have found that smoking urgency has been positively associated with perceived stress [42]. However, few studies have examined the relationship between the two dimensions of smoking urges and perceived stress. For instance, Lawless et al. [22], who investigated the association between perceived stress and smoking behavior according to sex, found a significant and positive correlation between perceived stress and smoking urges related to negative affect relief expectations in males only and not in females.
To our knowledge, no studies have examined the mediational effect of smoking urges and their dimensions on the relationship between perceived stress and abstinence achievement. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the indirect effect of perceived stress on abstinence outcomes at the end of treatment through smoking urges and their dimensions (desire and intentions to smoke and desire to smoke associated with the expectation of relief from negative affect).

2. Materials and Methods

The study procedures were reviewed and approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Santiago de Compostela before data were collected. Participants provided written consent after the research procedures had been explained to them.

2.1. Participants

The sample was composed of 260 Spanish treatment-seeking smokers who received face-to-face cognitive behavioral treatment to quit smoking at the Smoking Cessation and Addictive Disorders Unit of the University of Santiago de Compostela. The inclusion criteria were: (1) aged 18 years or older; (2) wishing to voluntarily participate in the treatment; (3) smoking at least six cigarettes/day; (4) completing the entire pre-treatment assessment; and (5) providing written informed consent. The exclusion criteria were: (1) diagnosis of a severe mental disorder (e.g., schizophrenia or bipolar disorder); (2) concurrent dependence on other substances (e.g., alcohol or cannabis dependence); (3) having a condition that implied high life risk that required immediate intervention (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or lung cancer); and (4) not attending the first treatment session.

2.2. Measures

The following instruments were used at pre-treatment:
  • The Smoking Habit Questionnaire [43]. This instrument is composed of 59 items about different aspects related to smoking behavior. It measures sociodemographic variables (sex, age, marital status, and educational level), history of past and current physical illnesses, and variables related to tobacco use (e.g., number of cigarettes per day [CPD], previous quit attempts, reducing tobacco use, stages of change, and use of other tobacco products different from cigarettes).
  • The Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD) [44]. This self-report questionnaire contains six items with two to four response options. The cut-off point that indicates high nicotine dependence is a score ≥ 6 [45]. We used the Spanish adaptation of the scale, which has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.66 [46]. In our sample, the Cronbach alpha was 0.59.
  • The brief version of the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU) [47]. This questionnaire is a brief version of the 32-item self-report questionnaire designed by Tiffany and Drobes [29] to measure smoking urges and cravings. We used the brief Spanish version of the questionnaire [48], which has been shown to have adequate psychometric properties and construct validity. This questionnaire consists of 10 items and is composed of two factors: (1) intentions and desires to smoke (QSU-Factor 1) and (2) the desire to smoke associated with the expectation of relief from negative affect (QSU-Factor 2). The reliability coefficients for both factors of the Spanish version of the questionnaire were α = 0.95 for Factor 1, and α = 0.93 for Factor 2 [48]. In our sample, the Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was 0.88, being 0.87 for Factor 1 and 0.81 for Factor 2.
  • The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS14) [49]. This self-report scale is made up of 14 items with a Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 to 4 to assess the degree to which a person appraises certain life situations as stressful. We used the Spanish adaptation of the scale [50], which has an internal consistency of α = 0.81 [51]. In our sample, the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83.
Treatment outcome assessment:
  • Abstinence at the end of treatment was self-reported and corroborated by assessing carbon monoxide (CO) in expired air using the Micro+ Smokerlyzer (Bedfont Scientific Ltd., Maidstone, Kent, UK). Participants were considered non-smokers if they reported no smoking for at least 24 h (not even one puff) at the end of treatment and had an expired CO ≤ 5 parts per million (ppm) [52]. Self-reported abstinence was checked to see if it matched the CO measurements for each participant. Those participants who self-reported abstinence but had CO measures of 6 ppm or higher were considered smokers. It is noteworthy that part of the sample was treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Therefore, the abstinence measures of 55.38% of the participants were self-reported only. To test the possible bias that this might lead to, we compared abstinence percentages between those participants who had biochemical validation and those who were only self-reported. The results of the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in abstinence rates (χ² = 1.708; p = 0.191).

2.3. Procedure

Participants were recruited from the community between January 2017 and June 2020 using posters in health centers and in different parts of the city, interviews in mass media, publications on the Smoking Cessation Unit’s social networks (Facebook and Instagram), referrals from primary care physicians or other health professionals, and other participants who had previously received the same treatment to quit smoking. Interested smokers contacted the unit by phone or email and were assigned an appointment for an individual pre-treatment assessment. A structured clinical assessment session was carried out in which sociodemographic characteristics and smoking-related variables were collected, and the above-mentioned questionnaires were completed. All participants provided written informed consent before the intervention.
All participants received the same multi-component cognitive behavioral smoking cessation treatment called “Programa para Dejar de Fumar” [53]. Two different delivery formats were used due to the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) in-person format in the Smoking Cessation and Addictive Disorders Unit during the pre-pandemic period from January 2017 to February 2020 and (2) through video calls during the pandemic period from March 2020 to June 2020. The treatment in both delivery formats consisted of eight 1 h group sessions once a week. Some of the treatment components included information about tobacco consequences, nicotine fading, smoking self-reporting, stimulus control, strategies for managing the withdrawal syndrome and relapse prevention (e.g., problem-solving training, weight control), and behavioral activation. Self-reported or biochemically verified smoking status was determined weekly during the treatment period (eight weeks). No pharmacotherapy was used. The participants did not receive financial compensation for their participation in the study.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations were calculated. Mediation analyses using PROCESS for SPSS, Version 4.0, were conducted to examine the indirect effect of perceived stress on abstinence outcomes at the end of smoking cessation treatment mediated through smoking urges. Model 4 was performed for both the simple and multiple mediation models. More specifically, a simple mediation model was conducted in which perceived stress was the independent variable (X), abstinence at the end of treatment was the dependent variable (Y; 0 = smoking; 1 = abstinence), and smoking urges (total QSU) was the mediator (M). A multiple mediation model was also performed in which the intentions and desires to smoke (QSU-Factor 1) and the desire to smoke associated with the expectation of relief from negative affect (QSU-Factor 2) were mediators in the relationship between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of treatment.
We examined differences related to sociodemographic data between the participants who received the different treatment delivery formats (in-person vs. video calls) and found significant differences in age (t = 2.397, p = 0.017), sex (χ2 = 4.861, p = 0.027), university or technical school (χ2 = 16.698, p = 0.001), and high school or general education diploma (χ2 = 7.687, p = 0.006). In order to control for possible confounding effects, these variables were included in the adjusted models. In addition, although no significant differences in abstinence rates were found between the treatment delivery formats, we included this variable in the model to account for its possible effects. All research variables were included in the model based on the scores obtained from the questionnaires described above.
Bootstrapping analysis with bias correction was used (10,000 resampling) to generate confidence intervals to analyze the study objectives [54,55]. In addition, reverse model analyses were performed to test QSU-total, QSU-Factor 1, and QSU-Factor 2 as predictor variables, as well as perceived stress as a mediator.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis and Correlations Results

All participants in the study were Caucasian. Regarding smoking-related variables, participants smoked an average of 18.22 cigarettes per day (SE = 8.04), and 36.3% of the participants were cigarette dependents, according to FTCD scores (≥6). Descriptive data are presented in Table 1.
Pearson correlations are presented in Table 2. Perceived stress was significantly and positively correlated with all the proposed mediational variables (QSU-total, QSU-Factor 1, and QSU-Factor 2). Furthermore, QSU-total and QSU-Factor 2 were significantly and negatively correlated with the outcome variable (abstinence at the end of treatment).

3.2. Mediation Analyses Results

Regarding the simple mediation analysis, the full model was significant (p = 0.008; Nagelkerke R2= 0.098). The results showed a non-significant direct effect of PSS14 on abstinence at the end of treatment (β = −0.0154; SE = 0.0207, 95% BootCI [−0.0560, 0.0252]) (Figure 1 and Table 3). However, there was a significant indirect effect of PSS14 on abstinence through the QSU-total score in both the adjusted (β = −0.0164; SE = 0.0070, 95% BootCI [−0.0326, −0.0053]) and unadjusted models (β = −0.0152; SE = 0.0067, 95% BootCI [−0.0302, −0.0039]).
Regarding the multiple mediation analysis, the full model was significant (p = 0.006; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.110). This analysis with the two QSU factors (QSU-Factor 1 and QSU-Factor 2) showed non-significant direct effects of PSS14 on abstinence (β = −0.0107; SE = 0.0211, 95% BootCI [−0.0520, 0.0307]) (Figure 2 and Table 3). A significant indirect effect of PSS14 on abstinence at the end of treatment, through QSU-Factor 2 in both the adjusted (β = −0.0197; SE = 0.0093, 95% BootCI [−0.0415, −0.0050]) and unadjusted models (β = −0.0203; SE = 0.0093, 95% BootCI [−0.0412, −0.0051]) was found. However, no significant indirect effect was found through QSU-Factor 1 either in the adjusted (β = −0.0012; SE = 0.0052, 95% CI [−0.0123, 0.0092]) or unadjusted models (β = 0.0006; SE = 0.0056, 95% CI [−0.0105, 0.0120]). Finally, the total indirect effect was significant (β = −0.0209; SE = 0.0080, 95% CI [−0.0396, −0.0084]).
Concerning the reverse models analysis, in which PSS14 was a potential mediator in the relationships between QSU-total or QSU-Factors 1 and 2 and abstinence at the end of treatment, non-significant indirect effects were found when used as predictor variables: QSU-total (β = −0.0021; SE = 0.0032, 95% BootCI [−0.0086, 0.0041]), QSU-Factor 1 (β = −0.0036; SE = 0.0035, 95% BootCI [−0.0112, 0.0031]), and QSU-Factor 2 (β = −0.0035; SE = 0.0077, 95% BootCI [−0.0187, 0.0124]).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the mediating role of the urge to smoke in the relationship between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of a smoking cessation treatment program. Our results showed a significant indirect effect of perceived stress on abstinence through the total QSU score. This finding is consistent with previous studies that analyzed these variables separately, finding that higher perceived stress predicted stronger urges to smoke [42] and that urges to smoke were associated with smoking cessation treatment outcomes, such as lower abstinence rates at the end of smoking cessation treatment and higher relapse rates [35,37].
We did not obtain a significant direct effect of perceived stress on abstinence at the end of smoking cessation treatment. This finding aligns with previous studies, as Hooper and Kolar [27] and Manning et al. [28] found no association between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of treatment. Moreover, these authors did not find an association between perceived stress and smoking status at follow-ups. However, other studies have found a significant relationship between variables. Specifically, Slovinec et al. [25] reported that lower perceived stress increased the odds of being abstinent at follow-ups, and al’Absi et al. [26] found that higher perceived stress predicted relapse. One possible explanation for these conflicting findings may be the presence of mediating variables that were not assessed in these studies.
When the two dimensions of urges to smoke were analyzed as mediators, only the desire to smoke associated with the expectation of negative affect relief was significant (QSU-Factor 2). Despite the finding that the desire and intention to smoke related to the expectation of tobacco consumption as a pleasurable experience (QSU-Factor 1) has been associated with abstinence in previous studies [40], we did not find a significant effect as a mediator between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of smoking cessation treatment. Therefore, smokers with higher perceived stress might not smoke due to an expectation of pleasure but instead for the expectation of relief from negative affect. Previous studies analyzing the nonpharmacological determinants of smoking suggest that smoking behavior is related to positive pleasure seeking and to negative reinforcing effects—avoiding withdrawal symptoms [32]. According to this approach, we hypothesize that relief from the discomfort of the withdrawal syndrome could be generalized by the smoker to relief from the negative affect related to stress [56]. Therefore, smokers might learn to use cigarettes as a tool for managing stress symptoms [57].
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, biochemical verification of abstinence was obtained for only half the sample. Expert recommendations [52,58] suggest that studies with limited in-person contact or data collected through the Internet or telephone, in which biochemical verification is not feasible, nevertheless provide reliable abstinence outcomes. Furthermore, we used treatment delivery format (in-person vs. online) as a covariate in the adjusted statistical analysis in order to account for the possible effects this could have. Second, the assessment questionnaires were self-reported, which could be influenced by biases such as social desirability. Third, perceived stress was measured at pre-treatment. Further studies are needed to analyze the influence of perceived stress assessed at other time points, such as post-treatment. Fourth, since the predictor and mediator variables were measured at the same moment, this study’s design does not allow us to make assumptions about the direction of the effects. For this reason, to gain confidence in the proposed models, different reverse models were analyzed, without finding significant effects in these alternative models. Finally, the present findings cannot be generalized to smokers from the general population because the sample was composed of treatment-seeking smokers.
This study also has some strengths. First, it has delved into the relationship between perceived stress and abstinence at the end of a smoking cessation treatment program. Therefore, this research contributes to filling a gap in the literature about the relationship between the variables studied. Second, this study was conducted with a large clinical sample. Finally, the analyses were carried out while controlling for numerous potential confounding effects.
The results of this study have important clinical implications, as they contribute to understanding the factors that may influence the effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments. For instance, including techniques for managing perceived stress in both daily activities and smoking-related situations (i.e., coping strategies training) could improve abstinence rates, as has been shown in previous studies [59]. Finally, although replication of the study findings is needed, our results could help clarify this association across different populations of adult smokers since those with mental health problems frequently mention the reduction of negative affect as one of the primary reasons for smoking [60,61,62].

5. Conclusions

In summary, this study highlights the relevance of smoking urges as mediators in the relationship between perceived stress and abstinence. Moreover, the analysis of the smoking urges dimensions emphasizes the relevance of the desire to smoke associated with the expectation of negative affect relief in a smoking cessation process in people with high perceived stress. Examining the mediator variables’ roles could contribute to tailoring interventions to treatment-seeking smokers’ characteristics and, consequently, improving treatment outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B.-H., D.S.-C., C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; methodology, M.B.-H., D.S.-C., C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; validation, C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; formal analysis M.B.-H.; investigation, M.B.-H., D.S.-C., C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; resources, E.B.; data curation, M.B.-H., D.S.-C., C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.-H.; writing—review and editing, D.S.-C., C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; visualization, M.B.-H., D.S.-C., C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; supervision, C.M.-V., A.L.-D. and E.B.; project administration, E.B.; funding acquisition, E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Project PSI2015-66755-R) and co-financed by FEDER (European Regional Development Found).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC 2016/17.6; USC-26/2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm (accessed on 2 December 2022).
  2. World Health Organization. Tobacco. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco (accessed on 2 December 2022).
  3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General; Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Office of the Surgeon General: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014.
  4. Royal College of Physicians. Smoking and Mental Health: A Joint Report; Royal College of Physicians: London, UK, 2013; pp. 1–201. ISBN 978-1-86016-508-5. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hartmann-Boyce, J.; Livingstone-Banks, J.; Ordóñez-Mena, J.M.; Fanshawe, T.R.; Lindson, N.; Freeman, S.C.; Sutton, A.J.; Theodoulou, A.; Aveyard, P. Behavioural Interventions for Smoking Cessation: An Overview and Network Meta-Analysis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 1, CD013229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Jha, P.; Ramasundarahettige, C.; Landsman, V.; Rostron, B.; Thun, M.; Anderson, R.N.; McAfee, T.; Peto, R. 21st-Century Hazards of Smoking and Benefits of Cessation in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General; Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Office of the Surgeon General: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2020.
  8. Taylor, G.; McNeill, A.; Girling, A.; Farley, A.; Lindson-Hawley, N.; Aveyard, P. Change in Mental Health after Smoking Cessation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ 2014, 348, g1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hajek, P.; Taylor, T.; McRobbie, H. The Effect of Stopping Smoking on Perceived Stress Levels. Addiction 2010, 105, 1466–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Streck, J.M.; Luberto, C.M.; Muzikansky, A.; Skurla, S.; Ponzani, C.J.; Perez, G.K.; Hall, D.L.; Gonzalez, A.; Mahaffey, B.; Rigotti, N.A.; et al. Examining the Effects of Stress and Psychological Distress on Smoking Abstinence in Cancer Patients. Prev. Med. Rep. 2021, 23, 101402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kim, S.-J.; Chae, W.; Park, W.-H.; Park, M.-H.; Park, E.-C.; Jang, S.-I. The Impact of Smoking Cessation Attempts on Stress Levels. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Martínez-Vispo, C.; Rodríguez-Cano, R.; López-Durán, A.; Senra, C.; Fernández del Río, E.; Becoña, E. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment with Behavioral Activation for Smoking Cessation: Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rodríguez-Cano, R.; López-Durán, A.; del Río, E.F.; Martínez-Vispo, C.; Martínez, Ú.; Becoña, E. Smoking Cessation and Depressive Symptoms at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-Months Follow-Up. J. Affect. Disord. 2016, 191, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Echeverria, I.; Cotaina, M.; Jovani, A.; Mora, R.; Haro, G.; Benito, A. Proposal for the Inclusion of Tobacco Use in Suicide Risk Scales: Results of a Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Patnode, C.D.; Henderson, J.T.; Melnikow, J.; Coppola, E.L.; Durbin, S.; Thomas, R. Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; U.S. Department of Health and Human Service: Rockville, MD, USA, 2021.
  16. Weinberger, A.H.; Kashan, R.S.; Shpigel, D.M.; Esan, H.; Taha, F.; Lee, C.J.; Funk, A.P.; Goodwin, R.D. Depression and Cigarette Smoking Behavior: A Critical Review of Population-Based Studies. Am. J. Drug Alcohol. Abus. 2017, 43, 416–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Piper, M.E.; Smith, S.S.; Schlam, T.R.; Fleming, M.F.; Bittrich, A.A.; Brown, J.L.; Leitzke, C.J.; Zehner, M.E.; Fiore, M.C.; Baker, T.B. Psychiatric Disorders in Smokers Seeking Treatment for Tobacco Dependence: Relations with Tobacco Dependence and Cessation. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2010, 78, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Clyde, M.; Pipe, A.; Reid, R.; Els, C.; Tulloch, H. A Bidirectional Path Analysis Model of Smoking Cessation Self-Efficacy and Concurrent Smoking Status: Impact on Abstinence Outcomes. Addict. Biol. 2018, 24, 1034–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Phillips, A.C. Perceived Stress. In Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine; Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1453–1454. ISBN 978-1-4419-1005-9. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fields, S.; Leraas, K.; Collins, C.; Reynolds, B. Delay Discounting as a Mediator of the Relationship between Perceived Stress and Cigarette Smoking Status in Adolescents. Behav. Pharmacol. 2009, 20, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Kim, K.; Park, H. Gender Differences in the Association between Self-Reported Stress and Cigarette Smoking in Korean Adolescents. Tob. Induc. Dis. 2016, 14, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Lawless, M.H.; Harrison, K.A.; Grandits, G.A.; Eberly, L.E.; Allen, S.S. Perceived Stress and Smoking-Related Behaviors and Symptomatology in Male and Female Smokers. Addict. Behav. 2015, 51, 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Stubbs, B.; Veronese, N.; Vancampfort, D.; Prina, A.M.; Lin, P.-Y.; Tseng, P.-T.; Evangelou, E.; Solmi, M.; Kohler, C.; Carvalho, A.F.; et al. Perceived Stress and Smoking across 41 Countries: A Global Perspective across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Robles, Z.; Garey, L.; Hogan, J.; Bakhshaie, J.; Schmidt, N.B.; Zvolensky, M.J. Examining an Underlying Mechanism between Perceived Stress and Smoking Cessation-Related Outcomes. Addict. Behav. 2016, 58, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. D’Angelo, M.E.S.; Reid, R.D.; Brown, K.S.; Pipe, A.L. Gender Differences in Predictors for Long-Term Smoking Cessation Following Physician Advice and Nicotine Replacement Therapy. Can. J. Public Health 2001, 92, 418–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. al’Absi, M.; Hatsukami, D.; Davis, G.L. Attenuated Adrenocorticotropic Responses to Psychological Stress Are Associated with Early Smoking Relapse. Psychopharmacology 2005, 181, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Webb Hooper, M.; Kolar, S.K. Distress, Race/Ethnicity and Smoking Cessation in Treatment-Seekers: Implications for Disparity Elimination. Addiction 2015, 110, 1495–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Manning, B.K.; Catley, D.; Harris, K.J.; Mayo, M.S.; Ahluwalia, J.S. Stress and Quitting Among African American Smokers. J. Behav. Med. 2005, 28, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Tiffany, S.T.; Drobes, D.J. The Development and Initial Validation of a Questionnaire on Smoking Urges. Addiction 1991, 86, 1467–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Tiffany, S.T.; Wray, J.M. The Clinical Significance of Drug Craving. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1248, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shiffman, S.; Dunbar, M.; Kirchner, T.; Li, X.; Tindle, H.; Anderson, S.; Scholl, S. Smoker Reactivity to Cues: Effects on Craving and on Smoking Behavior. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2013, 122, 264–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Fagerström, K. Determinants of Tobacco Use and Renaming the FTND to the Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2012, 14, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Lechner, W.V.; Gunn, R.L.; Minto, A.; Philip, N.S.; Brown, R.A.; Uebelacker, L.A.; Price, L.H.; Abrantes, A.M. Effects of Negative Affect, Urge to Smoke, and Working Memory Performance (n-Back) on Nicotine Dependence. Subst. Use Misuse 2018, 53, 1177–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fidler, J.A.; West, R. Enjoyment of Smoking and Urges to Smoke as Predictors of Attempts and Success of Attempts to Stop Smoking: A Longitudinal Study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011, 115, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hooper, M.W.; Dietz, N.A.; Wilson, J.C. Smoking Urges during Treatment and Long-Term Cessation among Low-Income African Americans. Ethn. Dis. 2017, 27, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Doherty, K.; Kinnunen, T.; Militello, F.S.; Garvey, A.J. Urges to Smoke during the First Month of Abstinence: Relationship to Relapse and Predictors. Psychopharmacology 1995, 119, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kotz, D.; van Rossem, C.; Viechtbauer, W.; Spigt, M.; van Schayck, O.C.P. Validity of Urges to Smoke Measures in Predicting Smoking Relapse during Treatment in Primary Care. Npj Prim. Care Respir. Med. 2021, 31, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Piñeiro, B.; López-Durán, A.; Fernández del Río, E.; Martínez, Ú.; Brandon, T.H.; Becoña, E. Craving y Abstinencia de La Nicotina En Fumadores Españoles En Un Tratamiento Para Dejar de Fumar. Adicciones 2014, 26, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Allen, S.; Bade, T.; Hatsukami, D.; Center, B. Craving, Withdrawal, and Smoking Urges on Days Immediately Prior to Smoking Relapse. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2008, 10, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Toll, B.A.; Schepis, T.S.; O’Malley, S.S.; McKee, S.A.; Krishnan-Sarin, S. Subjective Reactivity to the First Cigarette of the Day as a Predictor of Smoking Relapse: A Preliminary Study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007, 89, 302–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Heffner, J.L.; Mingione, C.; Blom, T.J.; Anthenelli, R.M. Smoking History, Nicotine Dependence, and Changes in Craving and Mood during Short-Term Smoking Abstinence in Alcohol Dependent vs. Control Smokers. Addict. Behav. 2011, 36, 244–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Todd, M. Daily Processes in Stress and Smoking: Effects of Negative Events, Nicotine Dependence, and Gender. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2004, 18, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Becoña, E. Evaluación de La Conducta de Fumar [Assessment of Smoking Behavior]. In Conductas adictivas: Teoría, evaluación y tratamiento; Graña, J.L., Ed.; Debate: Madrid, Spain, 1994; pp. 403–454. [Google Scholar]
  44. Heatherton, T.F.; Kozlowski, L.T.; Frecker, R.C.; Fagerstrom, K.-O. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: A Revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br. J. Addict. 1991, 86, 1119–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Fagerström, K.O.; Kunze, M.; Schoberberger, R.; Breslau, N.; Hughes, J.R.; Hurt, R.D.; Puska, P.; Ramström, L.; Zatoński, W. Nicotine Dependence versus Smoking Prevalence: Comparisons among Countries and Categories of Smokers. Tob. Control 1996, 5, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Becoña, E.; Vázquez, F.L. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence in a Spanish Sample. Psychol. Rep. 1998, 83, 1455–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cox, L.S.; Tiffany, S.T.; Christen, A.G. Evaluation of the Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU-Brief) in Laboratory and Clinical Settings. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2001, 3, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cepeda-Benito, A.; Reig-Ferrer, A. Development of a Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges--Spanish. Psychol. Assess. 2004, 16, 402–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Remor, E.; Carrobles, J.A. Versión Española de La Escala de Estrés Percibido (PSS-14): Estudio Psicométrico En Una Muestra VIH+. [Spanish Version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14): Psychometric Study in a HIV+ Sample.]. Ansiedad Y Estrés 2001, 7, 195–201. [Google Scholar]
  51. Remor, E. Psychometric Properties of a European Spanish Version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Span. J. Psychol. 2006, 9, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Benowitz, N.L.; Bernert, J.T.; Foulds, J.; Hecht, S.S.; Jacob, P.; Jarvis, M.J.; Joseph, A.; Oncken, C.; Piper, M.E. Biochemical Verification of Tobacco Use and Abstinence: 2019 Update. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2020, 22, 1086–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Becoña, E. Programa Para Dejar de Fumar [Smoking Cessation Program]; Nova Galicia Edicions: Vigo, Spain, 2007; ISBN 978-84-96950-67-2. [Google Scholar]
  54. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Piasecki, T.M. Relapse to Smoking. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 26, 196–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Delfino, R.J.; Jamner, L.D.; Whalen, C.K. Temporal Analysis of the Relationship of Smoking Behavior and Urges to Mood States in Men versus Women. Nicotine Tob. Res 2001, 3, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. West, R.; Hajek, P.; Stead, L.; Stapleton, J. Outcome Criteria in Smoking Cessation Trials: Proposal for a Common Standard. Addiction 2005, 100, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nohlert, E.; Öhrvik, J.; Helgason, Á.R. Self-Perceived Ability to Cope with Stress and Depressive Mood without Smoking Predicts Successful Smoking Cessation 12 Months Later in a Quitline Setting: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Farris, S.G.; Zvolensky, M.J.; Blalock, J.A.; Schmidt, N.B. Negative Affect and Smoking Motives Sequentially Mediate the Effect of Panic Attacks on Tobacco-Relevant Processes. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abus. 2014, 40, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lum, A.; Skelton, E.; Wynne, O.; Bonevski, B. A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Barriers and Facilitators to Smoking Cessation in People Living with Schizophrenia. Front. Psychiatry 2018, 9, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Mann-Wrobel, M.C.; Bennett, M.E.; Weiner, E.E.; Buchanan, R.W.; Ball, M.P. Smoking History and Motivation to Quit in Smokers with Schizophrenia in a Smoking Cessation Program. Schizophr. Res. 2011, 126, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 20 01257 g001 550
Figure 1. Simple mediation model with QSU-total as a mediator. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 1. Simple mediation model with QSU-total as a mediator. ** p < 0.01.
Ijerph 20 01257 g001
Ijerph 20 01257 g002 550
Figure 2. Multiple mediation model with QSU-Factors 1 and 2 as mediators. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2. Multiple mediation model with QSU-Factors 1 and 2 as mediators. ** p < 0.01.
Ijerph 20 01257 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive data of the study variables.
Table 1. Descriptive data of the study variables.
M (SD)/% (n)
Age (years)46.0 (11.1)
Sex (female)58.5 (152)
Education
University or technical school50.8 (132)
High school or general education diploma34.2 (89)
Less than high school diploma14.6 (38)
Without school diploma0.4 (1)
Marital status
Married45.8 (119)
Single34.2 (89)
Other marital status (e.g., divorced/separated, widowed)20.0 (52)
FTCD 14.8 (2.1)
PSS14 223.8 (7.2)
QSU-total 331.9 (13.8)
QSU-Factor 120.7 (8.9)
QSU-Factor 211.2 (6.6)
Abstinence at the end of treatment68.1 (177)
1 FTCD: Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence. 2 PSS14: Perceived Stress Scale. 3 QSU: Questionnaire of Smoking Urges.
Table
Table 2. Pearson correlations.
Table 2. Pearson correlations.
1234
1 PSS14 1-
2 QSU-total 20.29 **-
3 QSU-Factor 10.22 **0.92 **-
4 QSU-Factor 20.32 **0.86 **0.59 **-
5 Abstinence−0.08−0.18 **−0.12−0.22 **
1 PSS14: Perceived Stress Scale. 2 QSU: Questionnaire of Smoking Urges. ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Results of simple and multiple mediation analyses controlling for covariates.
Table 3. Results of simple and multiple mediation analyses controlling for covariates.
Simple Mediation
βSE 1pLLCI 2ULCI 3
Direct
PSS14 4 → QSU-total 5 0.51600.11730.00000.28490.7471
QSU-total → Abstinence −0.03170.01070.0031−0.0528−0.0107
PSS14 → Abstinence −0.01540.02070.4568−0.05600.0252
Indirect
PSS14 → QSU-total → Abstinence −0.01640.0070 −0.0326−0.0053
Multiple Mediation
βSEpLLCIULCI
Direct
PSS14 → QSU-Factor 1 0.23220.07640.00260.08170.3828
PSS14 → QSU-Factor 2 0.28370.05560.00000.17420.3933
QSU-Factor 1 → Abstinence −0.00510.02010.7976−0.04440.0342
QSU-Factor 2 → Abstinence −0.06930.02650.0089−0.1212−0.0174
PSS14 → Abstinence −0.01070.02110.6134−0.05200.0307
Indirect
PSS14 → QSU-Factor 1 → Abstinence −0.00120.0052 −0.01230.0092
PSS14 → QSU-Factor 2 → Abstinence −0.01970.0093 −0.0415−0.0050
1 SE: Standard Error. 2 LLCI: lower limit confidence interval. 3 ULCI: upper limit confidence interval. 4 PSS14: Perceived Stress Scale. 5 QSU: Questionnaire of Smoking Urges.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barroso-Hurtado, M.; Suárez-Castro, D.; Martínez-Vispo, C.; Becoña, E.; López-Durán, A. Perceived Stress and Smoking Cessation: The Role of Smoking Urges. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021257

AMA Style

Barroso-Hurtado M, Suárez-Castro D, Martínez-Vispo C, Becoña E, López-Durán A. Perceived Stress and Smoking Cessation: The Role of Smoking Urges. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(2):1257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021257

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barroso-Hurtado, María, Daniel Suárez-Castro, Carmela Martínez-Vispo, Elisardo Becoña, and Ana López-Durán. 2023. "Perceived Stress and Smoking Cessation: The Role of Smoking Urges" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 2: 1257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021257

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop