Background Concerns about the effects of vaping have prompted calls to restrict e-cigarette flavours. Vaping proponents have criticised these proposals, which they argue may discourage smokers from taking up vaping or trigger relapse to smoking. We explored the role flavours play in vaping uptake and cessation among New Zealand cigarette smokers and vaping-susceptible never smokers (VSNS), and examined current vapers’ preferred flavours.
Methods We conducted an online survey of 1005 New Zealanders aged 18–70 years that included 324 current vapers (vaped in the last 30 days) and 302 ‘past’ vapers (reported past vaping, but not within the last month). We asked respondents their reasons for vaping and explored current vapers’ preferred e-cigarette flavours; we analysed the data using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.
Results Irrespective of smoking status, flavour was one of the main reasons respondents gave for vaping (smokers 83%; former smokers 77%; VSNS 80%). Flavour was less important to former vapers; 47% of smokers, 57% of former smokers and 64% of VSNS cited flavour as a reason for originally taking up vaping. Fruit flavours were most popular among all three groups; smokers also favoured tobacco flavour, while former smokers also favoured mint or menthol, and never smokers also favoured confectionery/sweets/lolly flavours.
Conclusions Flavours play a major role in vaping initiation for current smokers, former smokers and vaping-susceptible non-smokers, and remain important to those who continue vaping. Our findings highlight the need for regulation that allows some flavour diversity without the extravagant marketing currently used to promote vaping and e-liquids.
- electronic nicotine delivery devices
- public policy
- advertising and promotion
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors PG led the data collection and analysis, and the manuscript development. JH conceptualised and designed the project, obtained research funding, and contributed to iterations of the manuscript. Both authors have seen and approved the final manuscript version and are guarantors of the manuscript.
Funding This research was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (grant 16/149).
Competing interests There are no competing interests to declare.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The University of Otago Human Ethics Committee reviewed and approved the study, and we undertook formal consultation with the Ngāi Tahu Research Consultative Committee, which represents the interests of indigenous Māori peoples.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.