BACKGROUND: Some jurisdictions have passed legislation that bans electronic cigarette (e-cig) use (vaping) in public places similarly to smoking. Many other jurisdictions have not yet determined how to regulate vaping in public places. This study examined the proportion of current e-cig users who find their vaping restricted in public places and further evaluated factors associated with the differences between restricted and unrestricted vapers. METHODS: 3960 experienced exclusive e-cig users completed an online survey from December 2012 to May 2014 about their e-cig use. Restricted vapers were defined as those who reported not being able to vape in places where smoking is typically banned. Unrestricted vapers were defined as those who reported being able vape in places where smoking is typically banned. χ2 and two-sided t-tests were used as appropriate to determine differences between variables of interest. RESULTS: Participants were a mean age of 40.3 years, 72.0% male, 91.8% white and 85.1% were from the USA. 26.1% (n=1034) of users reported restricted vaping, while 73.9% (n=2926) reported unrestricted vaping. Restricted vapers used less frequently (p<0.001) and were less dependent compared with unrestricted vapers (p=0.001). Of the restricted vapers, only 12% (n=124) reported finding it difficult to refrain from vaping in places where they were not supposed to. These users were more dependent (p<0.001) and more likely to experience strong cravings (p<0.001), compared with users who did not find it difficult to refrain from vaping. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that most vapers report unrestricted use of their e-cig. Of the restricted vapers, the majority (88%) do not find it difficult to refrain from vaping in places where they are not supposed to vape. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Some jurisdictions have passed legislation that bans electronic cigarette (e-cig) use (vaping) in public places similarly to smoking. Many other jurisdictions have not yet determined how to regulate vaping in public places. This study examined the proportion of current e-cig users who find their vaping restricted in public places and further evaluated factors associated with the differences between restricted and unrestricted vapers. METHODS: 3960 experienced exclusive e-cig users completed an online survey from December 2012 to May 2014 about their e-cig use. Restricted vapers were defined as those who reported not being able to vape in places where smoking is typically banned. Unrestricted vapers were defined as those who reported being able vape in places where smoking is typically banned. χ2 and two-sided t-tests were used as appropriate to determine differences between variables of interest. RESULTS:Participants were a mean age of 40.3 years, 72.0% male, 91.8% white and 85.1% were from the USA. 26.1% (n=1034) of users reported restricted vaping, while 73.9% (n=2926) reported unrestricted vaping. Restricted vapers used less frequently (p<0.001) and were less dependent compared with unrestricted vapers (p=0.001). Of the restricted vapers, only 12% (n=124) reported finding it difficult to refrain from vaping in places where they were not supposed to. These users were more dependent (p<0.001) and more likely to experience strong cravings (p<0.001), compared with users who did not find it difficult to refrain from vaping. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that most vapers report unrestricted use of their e-cig. Of the restricted vapers, the majority (88%) do not find it difficult to refrain from vaping in places where they are not supposed to vape. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cessation; Electronic nicotine delivery devices; Public policy
Authors: Jonathan Foulds; Susan Veldheer; Jessica Yingst; Shari Hrabovsky; Stephen J Wilson; Travis T Nichols; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-10-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Montse Ballbè; Jose M Martínez-Sánchez; Xisca Sureda; Marcela Fu; Raúl Pérez-Ortuño; José A Pascual; Esteve Saltó; Esteve Fernández Journal: Environ Res Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Eric K Soule; Sarah F Maloney; Tory R Spindle; Alyssa K Rudy; Marzena M Hiler; Caroline O Cobb Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Wolfgang Schober; Katalin Szendrei; Wolfgang Matzen; Helga Osiander-Fuchs; Dieter Heitmann; Thomas Schettgen; Rudolf A Jörres; Hermann Fromme Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Krysten W Bold; Steve Sussman; Stephanie S O'Malley; Rachel Grana; Jonathan Foulds; Howard Fishbein; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Zachary R Dunbar; Gary Giovino; Binnian Wei; Richard J O'Connor; Maciej L Goniewicz; Mark J Travers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alexa R Romberg; Megan C Diaz; Jodie Briggs; Daniel K Stephens; Basmah Rahman; Amanda L Graham; Barbara A Schillo Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.306