Carla J Berg1, Regine Haardoerfer2, Cam Escoffery2, Pinpin Zheng3, Michelle Kegler2. 1. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; cjberg@emory.edu. 2. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We examined: (a) current (past 30-day) smokers' interest in using or switching to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or smokeless tobacco for various reasons; (b) correlates of interest in these products; and (c) subgroups of current smokers in relation to interest in these products. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey assessing sociodemographics, tobacco use, interest in ENDS and smokeless tobacco among smokers, and knowledge about ENDS among 2,501 US adults recruited through an online consumer panel. We oversampled tobacco users (36.7% current cigarette smokers), ethnic minorities, and southeastern US state residents. RESULTS: On average, participants were more interested in ENDS than smokeless tobacco across all reasons provided. Additionally, they were less interested in either product because of their potential use in places prohibiting smoking or due to curiosity and more interested in reducing health risk or cigarette consumption or to aid in cessation. We documented high rates (27.9%) of misbeliefs about Food and Drug Administration approval of ENDS for cessation, particularly among current smokers (38.5%). Also, 27.2% of current smokers had talked with a health care provider about ENDS, with 18.0% reporting that their provider endorsed ENDS use for cessation. Furthermore, cluster analyses revealed 3 groups distinct in their interest in the products, sociodemographics, and smoking-related characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights higher interest in ENDS versus smokeless tobacco and greater interest in both for harm reduction and cessation than due to novelty or smoking restrictions. Developing educational campaigns and informing practitioners about caveats around ENDS as cessation or harm reduction aids are critical.
INTRODUCTION: We examined: (a) current (past 30-day) smokers' interest in using or switching to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or smokeless tobacco for various reasons; (b) correlates of interest in these products; and (c) subgroups of current smokers in relation to interest in these products. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey assessing sociodemographics, tobacco use, interest in ENDS and smokeless tobacco among smokers, and knowledge about ENDS among 2,501 US adults recruited through an online consumer panel. We oversampled tobacco users (36.7% current cigarette smokers), ethnic minorities, and southeastern US state residents. RESULTS: On average, participants were more interested in ENDS than smokeless tobacco across all reasons provided. Additionally, they were less interested in either product because of their potential use in places prohibiting smoking or due to curiosity and more interested in reducing health risk or cigarette consumption or to aid in cessation. We documented high rates (27.9%) of misbeliefs about Food and Drug Administration approval of ENDS for cessation, particularly among current smokers (38.5%). Also, 27.2% of current smokers had talked with a health care provider about ENDS, with 18.0% reporting that their provider endorsed ENDS use for cessation. Furthermore, cluster analyses revealed 3 groups distinct in their interest in the products, sociodemographics, and smoking-related characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights higher interest in ENDS versus smokeless tobacco and greater interest in both for harm reduction and cessation than due to novelty or smoking restrictions. Developing educational campaigns and informing practitioners about caveats around ENDS as cessation or harm reduction aids are critical.
Authors: N Gray; J E Henningfield; N L Benowitz; G N Connolly; C Dresler; K Fagerstrom; M J Jarvis; P Boyle Journal: Tob Control Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Thomas P McCoy; Holly E R Morrell; Bettina B Hoeppner; Mark Wolfson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ta Misha S Bascombe; Kimberly N Scott; Denise Ballard; Samantha A Smith; Winifred Thompson; Carla J Berg Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2016-01-22
Authors: Lila J Finney Rutten; Kelly D Blake; Amenah A Agunwamba; Rachel A Grana; Patrick M Wilson; Jon O Ebbert; Janet Okamoto; Scott J Leischow Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: William V Lechner; Cara M Murphy; Suzanne M Colby; Tim Janssen; Michelle L Rogers; Kristina M Jackson Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Cati G Brown-Johnson; Andrea Burbank; Eric J Daza; Arianna Wassmann; Amy Chieng; Geoffrey W Rutledge; Judith J Prochaska Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sarah E Adkison; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Vaughan W Rees; Dorothy K Hatsukami; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2016-09