OBJECTIVE The timeline follow-back interview is a common method of collecting daily cigarette consumption (cigarettes per day [CPD]) in smoking research. However, it may be subject to recall bias due to its reliance on retrospective reports. The increasing ownership of smartphones allows researchers to administer app-based digital diaries (DD) to collect CPD, which is expected to have less recall bias. Several studies have compared these two methods and found a noticeable discrepancy between them. However, these studies have mainly focused on the time window when smokers were smoking ad libitum. In this study, we wanted to determine the comparability of these two methods when treatment-seeking smokers are attempting to quit smoking. METHOD In a cessation trial, treatment-seeking smokers (n = 251) reported their CPD using the timeline follow-back and DD methods over a 12-week treatment period. To evaluate the comparability, we used the Bland-Altman comparison approach for agreement, correlational analysis between CPD and biochemical measures, digit bias, and logistic regression for predicting abstinence. RESULTS We found that the two methods exhibited good agreement, and the agreement did not vary as a function of consumption levels. Consistent with this agreement, CPD data from both methods showed similar correlations with biochemical measures of smoking and predicted 6-month abstinence in a comparable fashion. Despite the agreement, the DD method appeared to be more precise by having a lower digit bias than the timeline follow-back method. CONCLUSIONS Capturing smoking behavior using either TLFB or DD approaches yields similar data while smokers are attempting to quit smoking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

使用时间线追踪和数字日记在寻求治疗的吸烟者中收集可比的香烟消费数据。

目的 时间线跟踪访谈是吸烟研究中收集每日香烟消费量（每天香烟数[CPD]）的常用方法。然而，由于其依赖于回顾性报告，它可能会受到召回偏差的影响。智能手机拥有量的增加使研究人员能够管理基于应用程序的数字日记 (DD) 来收集 CPD，预计这会减少回忆偏差。几项研究比较了这两种方法，发现它们之间存在明显的差异。然而，这些研究主要集中在吸烟者随意吸烟的时间窗口。在这项研究中，我们想要确定当寻求治疗的吸烟者试图戒烟时这两种方法的可比性。方法 在一项戒烟试验中，寻求治疗的吸烟者 (n = 251) 在 12 周的治疗期内使用时间线随访和 DD 方法报告了他们的 CPD。为了评估可比性，我们使用 Bland-Altman 比较方法来进行一致性分析、CPD 和生化测量之间的相关分析、数字偏差以及用于预测戒断的逻辑回归。结果我们发现这两种方法表现出良好的一致性，并且一致性不会随着消费水平的变化而变化。与这一协议一致，两种方法的 CPD 数据显示与吸烟的生化指标有相似的相关性，并以类似的方式预测 6 个月的戒烟情况。尽管达成了一致，但 DD 方法似乎比时间线追踪方法更精确，因为其数字偏差更低。结论 当吸烟者尝试戒烟时，使用 TLFB 或 DD 方法捕获吸烟行为会产生类似的数据。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。