Richard J O'Connor1, Brian V Fix1, Ann McNeill2,3, Maciej L Goniewicz1, Maansi Bansal-Travers1, Bryan W Heckman4,5, K Michael Cummings4,5, Sara Hitchman2,3, Ron Borland6,7, David Hammond8, David Levy9, Shannon Gravely10, Geoffrey T Fong8,10,11. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. 2. Addictions Department, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 3. UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies, UK. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 5. Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 6. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 8. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Melbourne, ON, Canada. 9. Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Georgetown, Washington, DC, Canada. 10. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 11. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The regulatory environment for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) varies widely across countries and this will probably affect the devices used, nicotine content and usage, and hence the ability of NVPs to substitute for cigarettes. We aimed to describe the types of NVPs used by current vapers in four countries with varying regulatory and enforcement approaches toward the marketing and sale of NVPs. METHODS: Data are from wave 1 (July-November 2016) of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (4CV1), conducted among a cohort of current and former smokers, and current NVP users (n = 5147 adults; ≥ 18 years) in Australia (AU), Canada (CA), England (EN) and the United States (US) reporting either current daily, weekly or occasional NVP use. Devices were described by type, brand, voltage variability and refill capacity. Refill solutions were described by flavour and nicotine content. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were conducted on the overall sample and stratified by country. A multinomial logistic regression examined factors associated with device preference across the whole sample. RESULTS: The types of NVPs used differed by pattern of use and country. Exclusive, daily vapers were more likely to use refillable pen-shaped devices [odds ratio (OR) = 10.0] or refillable box-shaped devices (OR = 5.4) than disposable cigalike devices, when compared with other (non-daily/dual) users. Nearly all respondents reported using flavoured NVPs, fruit (28.3%) being the most common flavour. Refillable devices were the most popular: refillable box-shaped devices were more commonly reported by vapers in AU (36.8%) and US (31.4%), whereas in EN (47.4%) and CA (29.7%), vapers more often reported using refillable pen-style devices. Most users also reported that their products contained nicotine, even in CA (87.8%) and AU (91.2%), where vaping products containing nicotine were technically illegal. CONCLUSIONS: In Australia, Canada, England and the United States in 2016, refillable nicotine vaping products were the most common type of nicotine vaping products used by daily vapers. Most daily vapers reported using flavoured e-liquids/refills (with variance across countries) and most reported using products that contain nicotine, even where vaping products with nicotine were banned.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The regulatory environment for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) varies widely across countries and this will probably affect the devices used, nicotine content and usage, and hence the ability of NVPs to substitute for cigarettes. We aimed to describe the types of NVPs used by current vapers in four countries with varying regulatory and enforcement approaches toward the marketing and sale of NVPs. METHODS: Data are from wave 1 (July-November 2016) of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (4CV1), conducted among a cohort of current and former smokers, and current NVP users (n = 5147 adults; ≥ 18 years) in Australia (AU), Canada (CA), England (EN) and the United States (US) reporting either current daily, weekly or occasional NVP use. Devices were described by type, brand, voltage variability and refill capacity. Refill solutions were described by flavour and nicotine content. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were conducted on the overall sample and stratified by country. A multinomial logistic regression examined factors associated with device preference across the whole sample. RESULTS: The types of NVPs used differed by pattern of use and country. Exclusive, daily vapers were more likely to use refillable pen-shaped devices [odds ratio (OR) = 10.0] or refillable box-shaped devices (OR = 5.4) than disposable cigalike devices, when compared with other (non-daily/dual) users. Nearly all respondents reported using flavoured NVPs, fruit (28.3%) being the most common flavour. Refillable devices were the most popular: refillable box-shaped devices were more commonly reported by vapers in AU (36.8%) and US (31.4%), whereas in EN (47.4%) and CA (29.7%), vapers more often reported using refillable pen-style devices. Most users also reported that their products contained nicotine, even in CA (87.8%) and AU (91.2%), where vaping products containing nicotine were technically illegal. CONCLUSIONS: In Australia, Canada, England and the United States in 2016, refillable nicotine vaping products were the most common type of nicotine vaping products used by daily vapers. Most daily vapers reported using flavoured e-liquids/refills (with variance across countries) and most reported using products that contain nicotine, even where vaping products with nicotine were banned.
Authors: Derek A Pope; Lindsey Poe; Jeffrey S Stein; Brent A Kaplan; Bryan W Heckman; Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Alexander A Hirsch; Amanda J Quisenberry; Ron Borland; Richard J O'Connor; Geoffrey T Fong; Warren K Bickel Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2017-07
Authors: Lion Shahab; Maciej L Goniewicz; Benjamin C Blount; Jamie Brown; Ann McNeill; K Udeni Alwis; June Feng; Lanqing Wang; Robert West Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Pongkwan Yimsaard; Ann McNeill; Hua-Hie Yong; K Michael Cummings; Janet Chung-Hall; Summer Sherburne Hawkins; Ann C K Quah; Geoffrey T Fong; Richard J O'Connor; Sara C Hitchman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jenny E Ozga; Nicholas J Felicione; Ashley Douglas; Margaret Childers; Melissa D Blank Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Ron Borland; Krista Murray; Shannon Gravely; Geoffrey T Fong; Mary E Thompson; Ann McNeill; Richard J O'Connor; Maciej L Goniewicz; Hua-Hie Yong; David T Levy; Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Brian Vincent Fix; Richard J OConnor; Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Noel L Leigh; Michael Cummings; Sara C Hitchman; Geoffrey T Fong; Georges El Nahas; David Hammond; Ann McNeill; Ron Borland; Bill King; Mary N Palumbo Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Nicholas J Felicione; Brian Vincent Fix; Ann McNeill; K Michael Cummings; Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; David Hammond; Ron Borland; Bryan W Heckman; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Shannon Gravely; Sara C Hitchman; David T Levy; Geoffrey T Fong; Richard O'Connor Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Erna J Z Krüsemann; Franziska M Wenng; Jeroen L A Pennings; Kees de Graaf; Reinskje Talhout; Sanne Boesveldt Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kim Agj Romijnders; Erna Jz Krüsemann; Sanne Boesveldt; Kees de Graaf; Hein de Vries; Reinskje Talhout Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 3.390