You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Associations between electronic cigarette use and quitting behaviours among South African adult smokers
  1. Israel Agaku1,2,
  2. Catherine O Egbe3,4,
  3. Olalekan Ayo-Yusuf5
  1. 1 School of Health System and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
  2. 2 Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3 Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
  4. 4 Department of Public Health, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
  5. 5 Africa Centre for Tobacco Industry Monitoring and Policy Research, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
  1. Correspondence to Dr Israel Agaku, School of Health System and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa; u16218435{at}tuks.co.za

Abstract

Background The South African Medicines Control Council classifies e-cigarettes as Schedule 3 substances and requires them to be dispensed only within pharmacies. e-Cigarettes are however ubiquitous and are marketed as cessation aids. We investigated the relationship between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation among South African adult smokers.

Methods Data came from a 2018 web survey of South African adults aged ≥18 years (n=18 208). Cessation-related attitudes and behaviours were assessed. Using multivariable logistic regression, we measured the association between e-cigarette use and cessation behaviours among ever-established combustible tobacco smokers who tried to quit.

Findings Among current combustible smokers, more e-cigarette ever versus never users believed e-cigarettes could assist smokers to completely quit (35.5% vs 20.4%) or cut down (51.7% vs 26.5%) (all p<0.05). Among ever-established smokers, the odds of sustained quitting at the 12-month mark were lower among those who used e-cigarettes once off/rarely (adjusted OR (AOR)=0.20, 95% CI=0.16–0.24), former e-cigarette users (AOR=0.30, 95% CI=0.24–0.38) and current e-cigarette users (AOR=0.23, 95% CI=0.18–0.29), compared with never e-cigarette users. Among ever-established smokers who had ever tried to quit, 53.6% relapsed into smoking after quitting for any length of time. The odds of relapsing among ever-established smokers who had made a quit attempt and had a quit intention were higher among those who used e-cigarettes once off/rarely (AOR=2.66; 95% CI=2.31–3.08), former e-cigarette users (AOR=1.41; 95% CI=1.18–1.69) and current e-cigarette users (AOR=1.85; 95% CI=1.55–2.22) than never e-cigarette users.

Conclusion e-Cigarette use depressed long-term cessation. These findings can inform restrictions on unsubstantiated claims of e-cigarettes as cessation aids within South Africa.

  • cessation
  • electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • global health
  • low/middle income country
  • public policy

Data availability statement

Requests should be directed to the corresponding and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056102

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Data availability statement

    Requests should be directed to the corresponding and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors IA conceptualised and designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript. COE and AA helped conceptualise the study and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

    • Funding Support from the African Capacity Building Foundation to OAA (Grant No 333).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.