Background Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a common tobacco product in the US. Despite lacking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for cessation, e-cigarettes, including JUUL, a popular device, have been viewed by some as a potential tool for tobacco users seeking to quit combustible tobacco use. It is unknown how current and former smokers report using these products for cigarette smoking cessation.
Methods Online surveys were collected from a probability-based panel of US adults aged 18–64, with an oversample of past 12-month JUUL users (n=3415). Weighted past 12-month and past 30-day use of popular e-cigarette brands were measured. Former smokers with a quit attempt in the past 4 years and current smokers with a quit attempt in the past 12 months were asked about methods for smoking cessation, including e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) use.
Results Among former smokers (n=157), 21.2% used e-cigarettes and/or NRTs to help them quit. Specifically, 2.2% used JUUL only, compared with 10.3% who used NRTs only, and 6.9% used other e-cigarettes only to quit. Among current smokers with a quit attempt (n=308), 24.0% used any product (NRT or e-cigarettes) to quit, and only 1.1% used JUUL only. Current smokers reported relatively low use of NRTs only (10.1%), other e-cigarettes only (5.6%) and other e-cigarettes and NRTs (5.1%).
Conclusions Data suggest that few smokers in the US use e-cigarettes, and JUUL specifically, for cessation, and NRTs use is relatively low. All e-cigarettes should undergo FDA review to minimise recreational use and understand their cessation efficacy.
- electronic nicotine delivery devices
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MP conceptualised the study with AC and BS. YZ and AC analysed the data with supervision from MP. All authors were involved in study conceptualisation and design of analyses, collaborated on the interpretation of findings and placement in context, drafted the manuscript and were responsible for review and refinement of the manuscript’s content.
Funding This study was funded by Truth Initiative.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.