Search

Background Increasingly, people smoke cigarettes outdoors and avoid exposing bystanders to harm. People may not have the same motivation to vape outdoors since e-cigarettes, unlike cigarettes, do not create side stream emissions and exhaled aerosol contains fewer toxicants than secondhand smoke. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and correlates of vaping and smoking indoors among adults in England. Aims and Methods Data came from the Health Survey for England 2019, a cross-sectional household survey. Adults who vape or smoke (N  = 1530) were asked whether they had vaped or smoked indoors inside the home, car, or other places within the past 7 days. Logistic regression was used to estimate prevalence and key correlates of indoor use, including age, sex, presence of adults/children in home, housing tenure, and nicotine dependence. Results People who exclusively vaped were much more likely to use their product indoors than those who exclusively smoked (87.0% vs. 52.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 6.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.09 to 9.28). Similarly, people who dual used had higher odds of vaping than smoking indoors (62.1% vs. 44.3%; OR = 3.76, 95% CI = 2.06 to 6.84). The preference for vaping over smoking indoors was found across different locations, including at home and in cars. Those who were older, highly dependent on nicotine, and lived alone were most prone to use any product indoors. While housing tenure was not strongly associated with vaping indoors, those living in social housing were much more likely to smoke indoors than homeowners. Conclusions Adults in England are much more likely to vape than smoke indoors. Age, nicotine dependence, and living alone are strongly associated with both behaviors. Implications Our results show that people have a strong preference for vaping over smoking indoors, including in the home. Given the high prevalence of vaping indoors, policy makers, landlords, and businesses must weigh up the ethics, benefits, and harms of extending smoke-free laws to include e-cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction This study aimed to (1) provide up-to-date estimates of how changes in the prevalence of e-cigarette use have been associated with changes in smoking cessation activities and use of licensed treatments among smokers in England and (2) explore any changes in these associations over time. Methods Data were aggregated quarterly on 67 548 past-year smokers between Q1-2007 and Q4-2022. Explanatory variables were the prevalence of (1) current e-cigarette use among smokers and (2) e-cigarette use during a quit attempt. Outcomes were rates of quit attempts and overall quits among past-year smokers, and the quit success rate and use of licensed treatments among those who made a quit attempt. Results The success rate of quit attempts increased by 0.040% (95% CI 0.019; 0.062) for every 1% increase in the prevalence of e-cigarette use during a quit attempt. No clear evidence was found for an association between current e-cigarette use and the quit attempt rate (B adj = 0.008 [95% CI −0.045; 0.061]) or overall quit rate (B adj = 0.063 [−0.031; 0.158]); or between use of e-cigarettes during a quit attempt and the overall quit rate (B adj = 0.030 [−0.054; 0.114]), use of prescription medication (varenicline/bupropion/nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]: B adj = −0.036 [−0.175; 0.102]), or use of over-the-counter NRT (B adj = −0.052 [−0.120; 0.015]). There was no clear evidence this pattern of associations has changed substantially over time. Conclusions Changes in the prevalence of e-cigarette use in England through 2022 have been positively associated with the success rate of quit attempts but not clearly associated with the quit attempt rate, overall quit rate, or use of licensed smoking cessation treatments. Implications If the association between the increase in e-cigarette use and the quit success rate is causal, then the use of e-cigarettes in quit attempts has helped in the region of 30 000 to 50 000 additional smokers in England to successfully quit each year since they became popular in 2013, over and above the number who were quitting before the advent of e-cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction In the last 5 years, there has been a dramatic shift in the types of nicotine products being purchased. This study aimed to estimate how much users spend on types of cigarettes and alternative nicotine products (e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches) and describe changes between 2018 and 2022. Aims and Methods Monthly representative cross-sectional survey in England. 10 323 adults who smoked cigarettes or used alternative nicotine reported their average weekly expenditure on these products, adjusted for inflation. Results Smokers spent £20.49 [95% CI = 20.09–20.91] on cigarettes each week (£27.66 [26.84–28.50] and £15.96 [15.49–16.28] among those who mainly smoked manufactured and hand-rolled cigarettes, respectively), e-cigarette users spent £6.30 [5.99–6.55] (£8.41 [7.17–9.78], £6.42 [5.58–7.39], and £5.93 [5.64–6.30] among those who mainly used disposable, pod, and refillable devices, respectively), NRT users £6.11 [5.53–6.69], and heated tobacco users £13.87 [9.58–20.09]. Expenditure on cigarettes grew by 10% from September 2018 to July 2020, then fell by 10% from July 2020 to June 2022. These changes coincided with a 13% reduction in cigarette consumption and a 14% increase in the proportion mainly smoking hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on e-cigarettes was stable between 2018 and late 2020, then rose by 31% up to mid-2022. Expenditure on NRT increased slowly in 2018–2020 (+4%) and more quickly thereafter (+20%). Conclusions Inflation-adjusted expenditure on cigarettes has fallen since 2020, such that the average smoker in England currently spends the same on cigarettes each week as in 2018. This has been achieved by smoking fewer cigarettes and switching to cheaper hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on alternative nicotine has increased above inflation; users spent around a third more on these products in 2022 than between 2018–2020. Implications People in England continue to spend substantially more on smoking cigarettes than using alternative nicotine products. The average smoker in England spends around £13 a week (~£670 a year) more than people using only e-cigarettes or NRT. The average expenditure on manufactured cigarettes is double that of hand-rolled cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: E-cigarettes (ECs) may benefit smokers with mental health conditions who are more likely to smoke, and smoke more heavily, than those without mental health conditions. This could be undermined if harm misperceptions in this group are high as is the case in the general population. This study aimed to assess EC harm perceptions relative to cigarettes as a function of mental health status and a variety of characteristics.Methods: Data were collected from 6531 current smokers in 2016/2017 in household surveys of representative samples of adults. The associations of mental health status (self-reported mental health condition and past year treatment), smoking and EC use characteristics, and characteristics relating to use of potential information sources with harm perceptions of ECs relative to cigarettes (measured by correct response "less harmful" vs. wrong responses "more harmful," "equally harmful," "don't know") were analyzed with logistic regression.Results: A similar proportion of smokers without mental health conditions (61.5%, 95% CI 60.1-62.9) and with mental health conditions (both with [61.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.7-63.8] and without past year treatment [61.5%, 95% CI 58.1-64.7]) held inaccurate EC harm perceptions (all P > 0.05). Being female, nonwhite, aged 25-34 compared with 16-24, from lower social grades (C2, D, and E), not having post-16 qualifications, no EC experience, a daily smoker, unmotivated to quit <1 month, non-internet user and non-broadsheet reader were all associated with more inaccurate harm perceptions (all p < .05).Conclusions: The majority of smokers in England have inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs regardless of mental health status.Implications: This study is the first to use a nationally representative sample in order to investigate whether smokers with and without mental health conditions differ with regard to harm perceptions of ECs. Findings show that the majority of smokers in England hold inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs, and this does not differ as a function of mental health status. A number of characteristics associated with disadvantaged groups were significantly associated with inaccurate harm perceptions. These findings highlight the need to improve awareness and understanding among disadvantaged groups regarding the relative harms of ECs compared with tobacco. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess associations between sexual orientation and smoking and quitting behavior among adults in England.Methods: Data were collected from 112 537 adults (≥16 years) participating in a nationally representative monthly cross-sectional survey between July 2013 and February 2019. Sexual orientation was self-reported as heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian/gay, or prefer-not-to-say. Main outcomes were smoking status, e-cigarette use, cigarettes per day, time to first cigarette, motivation to stop smoking, motives for quitting, use of cessation support, and past-year quit attempts. Associations were analyzed separately for men and women using multivariable regression models adjusted for relevant covariates.Results: Smoking prevalence is now similar between gay (21.6%), prefer-not-to-say (20.5%) and heterosexual men (20.0%), and lesbian (18.3%) and heterosexual women (16.9%), but remains higher among bisexual men (28.2%, adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.79) and bisexual women (29.8%, ORadj = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.33 to 2.03) and lower among prefer-not-to-say women (14.5%, ORadj = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.99). Among smokers, bisexuals were less addicted than heterosexuals, with bisexual men smoking fewer cigarettes per day (Badj = -2.41, 95% CI = -4.06 to -0.75) and bisexual women less likely to start smoking within 30 min of waking (ORadj = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.95) than heterosexuals. However, motivation to stop smoking and quit attempts did not differ significantly.Conclusions: In England, differences in smoking prevalence among people with different sexual orientations have narrowed, primarily driven by a larger decline in smoking rates among sexual minority groups than heterosexuals. Bisexual men and women remain more likely to smoke but have lower levels of addiction while being no less likely to try to quit.Implications: This population-based study provides an up-to-date picture of smoking and quitting behavior in relation to sexual orientation among adults in England. Findings suggest that widely documented disparities in smoking prevalence have narrowed over recent years, with gay men and lesbian women no longer significantly more likely to smoke than heterosexuals, although smoking remains more common among bisexual men and women. Insights into differences in level of addiction, use of cessation support, and motives for quitting may help inform the development of targeted interventions to further reduce smoking among sexual minority groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To gain a better understanding of the complex and independent associations between different measures of socioeconomic position (SEP) and smoking in England.Aims and Methods: Between March 2013 and January 2019 data were collected from 120 496 adults aged 16+ in England taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study. Of these, 18.04% (n = 21 720) were current smokers. Six indicators of SEP were measured: social grade, employment status, educational qualifications, home and car ownership and income. Models were constructed using ridge regression to assess the contribution of each measure of SEP, taking account of high collinearity.Results: The strongest predictor of smoking status was housing tenure. Those who did not own their own home had twice the odds of smoking compared with homeowners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.01). Social grade, educational qualification, and income were also good predictors. Those in social grades C1 (OR = 1.04), C2 (OR = 1.29), D (OR = 1.39), and E (OR = 1.78) had higher odds of smoking than those in social grade AB. Similarly, those with A-level/equivalent (OR = 1.15), GCSE/vocational (OR = 1.48), other/still studying (OR = 1.12), and no post-16 qualifications (OR = 1.48) had higher odds of smoking than those with university qualifications, as did those who earned in the lowest (OR = 1.23), third (OR = 1.18), and second quartiles (OR = 1.06) compared with those earning in the highest. Associations between smoking and employment (OR = 1.03) and car ownership (OR = 1.05) were much smaller.Conclusions: Of a variety of socioeconomic measures, housing tenure appears to be the strongest independent predictor of smoking in England, followed by social grade, educational qualifications, and income. Employment status and car ownership have the lowest predictive power.Implications: This study used ridge regression, a technique which takes into account high collinearity between variables, to gain a better understanding of the independent associations between different measures of SEP and smoking in England. The findings provide guidance as to which SEP measures one could use when trying to identifying individuals most at risk from smoking, with housing tenure identified as the strongest independent predictor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To quantify population-level associations between quit attempts and factors that have varied across 2007-2017 in England.Methods: Data from 51 867 past-year smokers participating in the Smoking Toolkit Study (a monthly cross-sectional survey of individuals aged 16+) were aggregated over an 11-year period. Time series analysis was undertaken using ARIMAX modeling. The input series were: (1) prevalence of smoking reduction using (a) e-cigarettes and (b) nicotine replacement therapy; (2) prevalence of roll-your-own tobacco use; (3) prevalence of (a) smoking and (b) non-daily smoking; (4) mass media expenditure; (5) average expenditure on smoking; (6) characteristics in the form of (a) prevalence of high motivation to quit, (b) average age, (c) proportion from lower social grades, and (d) average number of cigarettes smoked; and (7) implementation of tobacco control policies.Results: There was a decline in the prevalence of quit attempts from 44.6% to 33.8% over the study period. The partial point-of-sale ban was associated with a temporary increase in quit attempt prevalence (Badjusted = 0.224%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.061 to 0.388). Quit attempts were positively associated with the prevalence of high motivation to quit (Badjusted = 0.165%;95% CI 0.048 to 0.282) and negatively associated with the mean age of smokers (Badjusted = -1.351%; 95% CI -2.168 to -0.534). All other associations were nonsignificant.Conclusion: Increases in the prevalence of high motivation to quit was associated with higher prevalence of attempts to quit smoking, while an increase in the mean age of smokers was associated with lower prevalence. The introduction of the partial point-of-sale ban appeared to have a temporary positive impact.Implications: This study provides insight into how monthly changes in a wide range of population-level factors are associated with changes in quit attempts over an extended time period in a country with a strong tobacco control climate. The findings suggest a need for intervention or policy to stimulate quit attempts in older smokers. Otherwise, increases in the mean age of a smokers appears likely to undermine wider efforts to promote quit attempts in a population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We evaluated how effective an advertising campaign that was piloted by Cancer Research UK in January/February 2018 was at promoting quit attempts by increasing awareness of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking.Methods: Adults (≥16 years, n = 2217) living in Greater Manchester (campaign region), Yorkshire & Humber and the North East of England (control regions) completed cross-sectional surveys immediately before and after the campaign period. Surveys measured socio-demographics, perceptions and use of e-cigarettes, and motivation and attempts to quit smoking. We tested interactions between time (pre, post) and region (campaign, control).Results: 36.7% (95% CI 33.0%-40.6%) of those in the intervention region recognized the campaign. In the general population, interactions were nonsignificant for all outcomes except for perception of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids, with smaller increases from pre- to post-campaign in the campaign (49.9% to 54.0%) compared with the control region (40.5% to 55.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% CI .45-0.98). Among smokers, motivation to quit increased in the intervention region (44.0% to 48.0%) but decreased in the control region (40.5% to 21.5%; OR = 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-7.16), with no other significant differences between regions over time. Bayes factors confirmed that nonsignificant results were inconclusive.Conclusions: Compared with the control region, the campaign was associated with an increase in smokers' motivation to quit but a smaller increase in adults' perception of e-cigarettes as an effective cessation aid. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the campaign affected other outcomes.Implications: Past extended mass media tobacco control campaigns have been shown to change public attitudes towards smoking, improve motivation to quit smoking, and reduce smoking prevalence. Much less is known about shorter, targeted campaigns. Here we show that using mass media to communicate accurate information about the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking may be an effective strategy in increasing smokers' motivation to quit. Moreover, even when only run for a month, such campaigns can reach a large proportion of the targeted population. Further research is needed to evaluate effects on quit attempts and success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Understanding the use of cheaper roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes may have implications for tobacco tax policy. We examined trends in RYO cigarette use in England between 2008 and 2017, and characterized users' sociodemographic and smoking profiles.Methods: We used data from 211 469 respondents to a survey representative of the adult (≥16 years) population. In current smokers across the entire study period (n = 43 389), we assessed multivariable associations between cigarette type (RYO or factory-made [FM]) and sociodemographic and smoking characteristics. Among current smokers in 2008 and 2017 (n = 7685), we tested interactions between year and cigarette type to assess the stability of each characteristic.Results: Between 2008 and 2017, FM cigarette use declined from 15.3% to 9.2% whereas RYO use increased from 6.7% to 8.1%. Greater odds of RYO use were observed among younger, male smokers from lower social grades, who were more addicted and used electronic cigarettes (ORrange = 1.28-1.86, p < .001). Lower odds of RYO use were observed among nondaily smokers, those with high motivation to stop, and higher spending on smoking (ORrange = 0.46-0.89, p ≤ .001). The RYO smoker profile was relatively stable between 2008 and 2017. However, compared with FM use, RYO use increased in younger (p < .001) and female (p = .019) smokers, and there was a relatively smaller decline in the proportion cutting down or trying to quit (p = .004).Conclusion: In England, RYO use increased when overall smoking prevalence and FM use decreased. The profile of RYO smokers remained relatively stable, with users typically younger, male, more addicted, deprived, spending less on smoking, and less inclined to quit than FM smokers.Implications: This population-based study provides novel insight into recent trends in RYO use in England, providing an up-to-date understanding of the profile of RYO smokers. Without the consistent application of tax across the range of combustible products, smokers who are more dependent are able to capitalize on the lower cost of RYO in order to continue smoking, undermining the potential benefit of taxation on cessation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]