Comparing video observation to electronic topography device as a method for measuring cigarette puffing behavior

Abstract

BackgroundSmoking topography, or puffing behavior, is an important measure of how consumers may use tobacco products. However, numerous issues may prevent collection of this data via in-person, electronic topography device (e.g., CReSS). This study compared cigarette topography measures collected by video observation and electronic device. MethodsLaboratory smoking sessions were video recorded and scored for 96 cigarettes collected from 34 daily, adult non-treatment-seeking smokers (73.5 % male, 82.4 % White). Participants smoked three of their preferred brand cigarettes using an electronic topography device, providing carbon monoxide (CO) samples before and after each cigarette. Analyses compared measures from both assessment methods and examined associations with device-obtained total puff volume and CO boost. ResultsAgreement analyses indicated robust similarity between methods for measures of puff count and total interpuff interval (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]’s > 0.96,p’s < 0.001; Bland-Altman [B-A] plotted differences within a priori limit of clinical significance) but diverged on total duration (ICC’s > .93, p’s < .001, yet B-A plots outside a priori limits). Regardless of assessment method, total duration and puff count (but not total interpuff interval) predicted total puff volume (p’s < .001). None predicted CO boost (p’s = .07–.90).” ConclusionsAlthough some topography outcomes (e.g., total puff volume) cannot be assessed via video observation, video-observed measures of puff count, total duration, and total interpuff interval are generally interchangeable with their topography device-obtained counterparts. Thus, video observation is likely a sufficient substitute method for assessing cigarette topography when using an electronic device is not possible.