Physiological Reaction Study Of Smoking Craving And Its Intervention

Smoking craving is a crucial factor of cigarette addiction and relapse after abstinence. More and more researchers have realized the importance of smoking craving, and began to explore its initiation mechanism, with the aim to develop intervention plans and provide theoretic basis for treatment.In this study, cue-reactivity paradigm is applied to 30 non-smokers and 45 smokers in Beijing, to examine the influence of nicotine dependence, exterior and interior cue type on physiological reaction related to smoking craving. Later, 23 smokers are selected from the subject group for further EEG training and self-efficacy training. The effectiveness of physiological methods and psychological methods on self-efficacy and cigarette reduction is compared. Conclusions are as follows:1. When eyes are closed, skin temperature and blood volume pulse of deprived smokers is significantly higher than that of satisfied smokers;2. When exposed to exterior visual cues, skin temperature of deprived smokers is significantly higher than that of satisfied smokers; Smokers'αandθpower are the lowest when exposed to moderate craving-inducing cues;3. When exposed to visual cues, skin temperature of addicts is significantly higher than that of non-addicts and non-smokers; the interaction between craving-inducing pictures and nicotine dependence is significant onαpower;4. The level of general self-efficacy for addicts is lower than that of non-addicts and non-smokers, the level of smoking-control self-efficacy for addicts is lower than that of non-addicts;5. After EEG training, trainees'αpower increases significantly, butαpower change can not predict the change in cigarette consumption. However, the post-test general self-efficacy can negatively predict consumption change;6. After self-efficacy training, smoking-control self-efficacy increases significantly, and post-test smoking-control self-efficacy can negatively predict cigarette consumption change;7. Psychological intervention and physiological training shows no significant difference in immediate training effect.