Ron Borland1,2, Krista Murray1, Shannon Gravely3, Geoffrey T Fong3,4,5, Mary E Thompson6, Ann McNeill7,8, Richard J O'Connor9, Maciej L Goniewicz9, Hua-Hie Yong1,10, David T Levy11, Bryan W Heckman12,13, K Michael Cummings12,13. 1. School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 5. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 7. Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 8. UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies, UK. 9. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. 10. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. 11. Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Georgetown, Washington, DC, USA. 12. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 13. Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine whether a simple combination of level of smoking and level of vaping results in a useful typology for characterizing smoking and vaping behaviours. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from adults (≥ 18 years) in the 2016 wave 1 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey in the United States (n = 2291), England (n = 3591), Australia (n = 1376) and Canada (n = 2784) were used. Participants who either smoked, vaped or concurrently used both at least monthly were included and divided into eight groups based on use frequency of each product (daily, non-daily, no current use). This resulted in four concurrent use groups (predominant smokers, dual daily users, predominant vapers and concurrent non-daily users). These groups were compared with each other and with the four exclusive use groups, on socio-demographics, nicotine dependence, beliefs and attitudes about both products, and quit-related measures using data weighted to reference population surveys in each country. RESULTS: Of the sample, 10.8% were concurrent users, with daily smokers vaping non-daily (predominant smokers), constituting 51.6% of this group. All eight categories differed from other categories on at least some measures. Concurrent daily nicotine users reported higher levels of indicators of nicotine dependence, and generally more positive attitudes toward both smoking and vaping than concurrent non-daily users. Among daily nicotine users, compared with exclusive daily smokers, reports of interest in quitting were higher in all concurrent use groups. Dual daily users had the most positive attitudes about smoking overall, and saw it as the least denormalized, and at the same time were equally interested in quitting as other concurrent users and were most likely to report intending to continue vaping. CONCLUSIONS: In Australia, Canada, England and the United States in 2016, daily nicotine users differed considerably from non-daily nicotine users. Among daily nicotine users, dual daily users (those who smoke and vape concurrently) should be treated as a distinct grouping when studying relationships between smoking and vaping. The eight-level typology characterizing concurrent and exclusive use of smoking and vaping should be considered when studying both products.
AIMS: To determine whether a simple combination of level of smoking and level of vaping results in a useful typology for characterizing smoking and vaping behaviours. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from adults (≥ 18 years) in the 2016 wave 1 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey in the United States (n = 2291), England (n = 3591), Australia (n = 1376) and Canada (n = 2784) were used. Participants who either smoked, vaped or concurrently used both at least monthly were included and divided into eight groups based on use frequency of each product (daily, non-daily, no current use). This resulted in four concurrent use groups (predominant smokers, dual daily users, predominant vapers and concurrent non-daily users). These groups were compared with each other and with the four exclusive use groups, on socio-demographics, nicotine dependence, beliefs and attitudes about both products, and quit-related measures using data weighted to reference population surveys in each country. RESULTS: Of the sample, 10.8% were concurrent users, with daily smokers vaping non-daily (predominant smokers), constituting 51.6% of this group. All eight categories differed from other categories on at least some measures. Concurrent daily nicotine users reported higher levels of indicators of nicotine dependence, and generally more positive attitudes toward both smoking and vaping than concurrent non-daily users. Among daily nicotine users, compared with exclusive daily smokers, reports of interest in quitting were higher in all concurrent use groups. Dual daily users had the most positive attitudes about smoking overall, and saw it as the least denormalized, and at the same time were equally interested in quitting as other concurrent users and were most likely to report intending to continue vaping. CONCLUSIONS: In Australia, Canada, England and the United States in 2016, daily nicotine users differed considerably from non-daily nicotine users. Among daily nicotine users, dual daily users (those who smoke and vape concurrently) should be treated as a distinct grouping when studying relationships between smoking and vaping. The eight-level typology characterizing concurrent and exclusive use of smoking and vaping should be considered when studying both products.
Authors: M E Thompson; G T Fong; D Hammond; C Boudreau; P Driezen; A Hyland; R Borland; K M Cummings; G B Hastings; M Siahpush; A M Mackintosh; F L Laux Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: David B Abrams; Allison M Glasser; Jennifer L Pearson; Andrea C Villanti; Lauren K Collins; Raymond S Niaura Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Shannon Gravely; James F Thrasher; Ann McNeill; Sara Hitchman; Elizabeth Greenhalgh; Mary E Thompson; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Mary E Thompson; Geoffrey T Fong; Christian Boudreau; Pete Driezen; Grace Li; Shannon Gravely; K Michael Cummings; Bryan W Heckman; Richard O'Connor; James F Thrasher; Georges Nahhas; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; Ann McNeill; Sara C Hitchman; Anne C K Quah Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Brian V Fix; Ann McNeill; Maciej L Goniewicz; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Sara Hitchman; Ron Borland; David Hammond; David Levy; Shannon Gravely; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Summer Sherburne Hawkins; Janet Chung-Hall; Lorraine Craig; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; David Levy; Sara C Hitchman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Shannon Gravely; James F Thrasher; Ann McNeill; Sara Hitchman; Elizabeth Greenhalgh; Mary E Thompson; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Michael J Arnold; Nicole L Nollen; Matthew S Mayo; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Eleanor L Leavens; Guanlin Zhang; Myra Rice; Kim Pulvers Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Lin Li; Ron Borland; Kenneth Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong; Shannon Gravely; Danielle M Smith; Maciej L Goniewicz; Richard J O'Connor; Mary E Thompson; Ann McNeill Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Danielle M Smith; Carol Christensen; Dana van Bemmel; Nicolette Borek; Bridget Ambrose; Gladys Erives; Raymond Niaura; Kathryn C Edwards; Cassandra A Stanton; Benjamin C Blount; Lanqing Wang; Jun Feng; Jeffery M Jarrett; Cynthia D Ward; Dorothy Hatsukami; Stephen S Hecht; Heather L Kimmel; Mark Travers; Andrew Hyland; Maciej L Goniewicz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Lin Li; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Shannon Gravely; Anne C K Quah; Geoffrey T Fong; Connor R Miller; Maciej L Goniewicz; Michael Le Grande; Ann McNeill Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 4.244