Search

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., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Government regulations of nicotine vaping products (NVP) have evolved rapidly during the past decade. The impact of NVP regulatory environment and vaping on cigarette demand is unknown. The current study aims to investigate whether or not respondents' reported cigarette demand, as measured by a hypothetical cigarette purchase task, varies with (1) smoking status, (2) vaping status or (3) NVP regulatory environment (country used as proxy)., Design: Cross-sectional survey data from wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) Survey (2016)., Setting: Australia, Canada, England and the United States., Participants: A total of 10 316 adult smokers., Measurements: A hypothetical purchase task asked smokers to estimate how many cigarettes they would purchase for consumption in a single day across multiple cigarette prices. Responses were used to derive measures of cigarette demand. Overall sensitivity of cigarette consumption to price increases was quantified to index cigarette demand elasticity, whereas estimated consumption when cigarettes are free was used to index cigarette demand intensity., Findings: A majority of the non-daily smokers had previously smoked daily (72.3%); daily vapers were more likely to be former daily smokers (89.9%) compared to non-daily vapers (70.1%) and non-vapers (69.2%) (P < 0.001). The smoking status × vaping status interaction was significant for cigarette demand intensity (F = 4.93; P = 0.007) and elasticity (F = 7.30; P = 0.001): among non-daily smokers, vapers reported greater intensity but lower elasticity (i.e. greater demand) relative to non-vapers (Ps < 0.05). Among daily smokers, daily vapers reported greater intensity relative to non-vapers (P = 0.005), but vaping status did not impact elasticity (Ps > 0.38). Intensity was higher in Australia compared with all other countries (Ps < 0.001), but elasticity did not vary by country (F = 2.15; P = 0.09)., Conclusions: In a hypothetical purchase task, non-daily smokers showed lower price elasticity if they used e-cigarettes than if they did not, while there was no clear difference in elasticity between e-cigarette users and non-users among daily smokers or according to regulatory environment of their country with regard to e-cigarettes., (© 2018 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aim: To describe the methods of the 2016 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) Survey, conducted in 2016 in Australia (AU), Canada (CA), England (EN) and the United States (US)., Methods: The respondents were cigarette smokers, former smokers (quit within the previous 2 years), and at-least-weekly vapers, aged 18 years and older. Eligible cohort members from the ITC Four Country Survey (4C) were retained. New respondents were sampled by commercial firms from their panels. Where possible, ages 18-24 and vapers were oversampled. Data were collected online, and respondents were remunerated. Survey weights were calibrated to benchmarks from nationally representative surveys., Results: Response rates by country for new recruits once invited ranged from 15.2 to 49.6%. Sample sizes for smokers/former smokers were 1504 in AU, 3006 in CA, 3773 in EN and 2239 in the US. Sample sizes for additional vapers were 727 in CA, 551 in EN and 494 in the US., Conclusion: The International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey design and data collection methods allow analyses to examine prospectively the use of cigarettes and nicotine vaping products in jurisdictions with different regulatory policies. The effects on the sampling designs and response quality of recruiting the respondents from commercial panels are mitigated by the use of demographic and geographic quotas in sampling; by quality control measures; and by the construction of survey weights taking into account smoking/vaping status, sex, age, education and geography., (© 2018 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Debate exists about whether health professionals (HPs) should advise smokers to use nicotine vaping products (NVPs) to quit smoking. The objectives were to examine in four countries: (1) the prevalence of HP discussions and recommendations to use an NVP; (2) who initiated NVP discussions; (3) the type of HP advice received about NVPs; and (4) smoker's characteristics related to receiving advice about NVPs., Design: Cross-sectional study using multivariable logistic regression analyses on weighted data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC 4CV1)., Setting: Four countries with varying regulations governing the sale and marketing of NVPs: 'most restrictive' (Australia), 'restrictive' (Canada) or 'less restrictive' (England and United States)., Participants: A total of 6615 adult smokers who reported having visited an HP in the last year (drawn from the total sample of 12 294 4CV1 respondents, of whom 9398 reported smoking cigarettes daily or weekly). Respondents were from the United States (n = 1518), England (n = 2116), Australia (n = 1046), and Canada (n = 1935)., Measurements: Participants' survey responses indicated if they were current daily or weekly smokers and had visited an HP in the past year. Among those participants, further questions asked participants to report (1) whether NVPs were discussed, (2) who raised the topic, (3) advice received on use of NVPs and (4) advice received on quitting smoking., Findings: Among the 6615 smokers who visited an HP in the last year, 6.8% reported discussing NVPs with an HP and 2.1% of smokers were encouraged to use an NVP (36.1% of those who had a discussion). Compared with Australia (4.3%), discussing NVPs with an HP was more likely in the United States [8.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-3.29] and Canada (7.8%, OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.26-2.78). Smokers in Australia were less likely to discuss NVPs than smokers in England (6.2%), although this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.98-2.20). Overall, the prevalence of HPs recommending NVPs was three times more likely in the United States than in Australia (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.45-6.47), and twice as likely in Canada (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.06-4.87) than in Australia. Australia and England did not differ (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 0.83-3.74). Just over half (54%) of respondents brought up NVPs themselves; there were no significant differences among countries., Conclusions: Discussions in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States between smokers and health professionals about nicotine vaping products appear to be infrequent, regardless of the regulatory environment. A low percentage of health professionals recommended vaping products. This was particularly evident in Australia, which has the most restrictive regulatory environment of the four countries studied., (© 2018 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aims: To determine if there are associations between changes in the explicit (i.e. price) and implicit (i.e. use restrictions in public places) costs of cigarettes and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and their use patterns in the United States., Methods: Data came from wave 1 (2016) US data of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC US 4CV1) and Nielsen Scanner Track database. A multiple logistic regression model was applied to estimate the likelihoods of NVP use (vaping at least monthly), cigarette/NVP concurrent use (vaping and smoking at least monthly) and switch from cigarettes to NVPs (had quit smoking < 24 months and currently vape) among ever smokers, conditioning upon cigarette/NVP prices, use restrictions and socio-demographics., Results: Living in places where vaping is allowed in smoke-free areas was significantly associated with an increase in the likelihood of vaping [marginal effect (ME) = 0.17; P < 0.05] and the concurrent use of cigarettes and NVPs (ME = 0.11; P < 0.05). Higher NVP prices were associated with decreased likelihood of NVP use, concurrent use, and complete switch (P > 0.05). Higher cigarette prices were associated with greater likelihood of cigarette and NVP concurrent use (P > 0.05). Working in places where vaping is banned is associated with lower likelihood of vaping and NVP and cigarette concurrent use (P > 0.05)., Conclusions: Higher prices for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and vaping restrictions in public places are associated with less NVP use and less concurrent use of vaping and smoking. Public policies that increase prices for vaping devices and supplies (i.e. regulations, taxes) and restrict where vaping is allowed are likely to suppress vaping., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

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., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aims: To examine rules about smoking and vaping in the home in relation to beliefs about the relative harm of second-hand vapor (SHV) compared with second-hand smoke (SHS) in four countries: Canada, United States, England and Australia., Design: Data were available from 12 294 adults (18+) who participated in the 2016 (wave 1) International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV1) Survey., Participants: All participants were current or recent former adult smokers., Measurements: Data were analyzed by weighted logistic regression on rules about smoking and vaping in the home; odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported, adjusted for demographic and behavioral variables., Findings: Of all respondents, 37.4% allowed smoking inside their home. Among a subset who were current vapers (n = 6135), 60.4% allowed vaping in their homes. After controlling for demographic and behavioral characteristics, beliefs about the harm of SHV compared with SHS was not associated with allowing smoking in the home, but was associated with allowing vaping in the home [odds ratio (OR) = 2.86 in Canada, OR = 1.82 in the United States and OR = 1.68 in England]. Characteristics that were associated with rules about vaping inside the home included daily vaping (OR = 2.95, 2.04-4.26; OR = 7.00, 4.12-11.87; OR = 5.50, 3.40-8.88; OR = 7.78, 1.90-31.80), living with a spouse who vapes (OR = 2.48, 1.54-3.98; OR = 2.69, 1.42-5.11; OR = 4.67, 2.74-7.95; OR = 21.82, 2.16-220.9) and living with children aged under 18 years (OR = 0.50, 0.37-0.68; OR = 0.89, 0.48-1.65; OR = 0.76, 0.53-1.09; OR = 0.26, = 0.11-0.61) in Canada, the United States, England and Australia, respectively. Similar characteristics were associated with rules about smoking inside the home., Conclusions: Among current and former smokers in 2016 in Canada, the United States, England and Australia, 37.4% allowed smoking in the home; 60.4% of current vapers allowed vaping. Both concurrent users and exclusive vapers were more likely to allow vaping than smoking inside the home. Allowing vaping inside the home was correlated with the belief that second-hand vapor is less harmful than second-hand smoke., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aims: To quantify the effect of negative affect (NA), when manipulated experimentally, upon smoking as measured within laboratory paradigms. Quantitative meta-analyses tested the effects of NA versus neutral conditions on (1) latency to smoke and (2) number of puffs taken., Methods: Twelve experimental studies tested the influence of NA induction, relative to a neutral control condition (n = 1190; range = 24-235). Those providing relevant data contributed to separate random-effects meta-analyses to examine the effects of NA on two primary smoking measures: (1) latency to smoke (nine studies) and (2) number of puffs taken during ad libitum smoking (11 studies). Hedge's g was calculated for all studies through the use of post-NA cue responses relative to post-neutral cue responses. This effect size estimate is similar to Cohen's d, but corrects for small sample size bias., Results: NA reliably decreased latency to smoke (g = -0.14; CI = -0.23 to -0.04; P = 0.007) and increased number of puffs taken (g = 0.14; CI = 0.02 to 0.25; P = 0.02). There was considerable variability across studies for both outcomes (I(2)  = 51 and 65% for latency and consumption, respectively). Potential publication bias was indicated for both outcomes, and adjusted effect sizes were smaller and no longer statistically significant., Conclusions: In experimental laboratory studies of smokers, negative affect appears to reduce latency to smoking and increase number of puffs taken, but this could be due to publication bias., (© 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Retrospective self-report and observational studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding the capacity of negative affect (NA) to increase smoking motivation among dependent samples. Controlled laboratory studies offer an alternative paradigm for testing the role of affective state upon smoking motivation. The aim of the current study was to quantify cue-provoked cravings produced by affective manipulations in the published literature, and to identify theoretical and methodological moderators., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify experimental studies that manipulated NA or positive affect (PA), and assessed post-manipulation craving. Separate random-effects meta-analyses examined NA and PA cues as predictors of self-reported craving. Self-reported affect (NA and PA), nicotine deprivation, gender, nicotine dependence, order of cue presentation, single versus multi-item craving assessment and affect induction method were tested as moderators of affective cue-induced craving., Results: NA manipulations produced a medium effect [g = 0.47; confidence interval (CI) = 0.31-0.63] on craving, but no main effects were found for PA manipulations (g = 0.05; CI = -0.09 to 0.20) on craving. Self-reported NA moderated the extent to which NA and PA manipulations elicited craving (P < 0.02 for each). That is, more effective NA manipulations produced greater cravings, and PA manipulations reduced cravings when they reduced NA., Conclusions: Laboratory studies indicate that negative, but not positive, affect is a situational determinant of cravings to smoke among dependent smokers. Adverse emotional states increase craving to smoke among dependent smokers, but positive emotional states do not consistently reduce craving to smoke., (© 2013 Society for the Study of Addiction.)