You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Brief report
Interest in quitting e-cigarette use by device type and smoking history in US adults
  1. Amanda M Palmer1,
  2. Alana M Rojewski1,2,
  3. Matthew J Carpenter1,2,3,
  4. Elias M Klemperer4,
  5. Nathaniel L Baker1,2,3,
  6. Brandon T Sanford1,5,
  7. Benjamin A Toll1,2,4
  1. 1 Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  2. 2 Hollings Cancer Center, Medical Univeristy of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  3. 3 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  4. 4 Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA
  5. 5 Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Amanda M Palmer, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA; palmeram{at}musc.edu

Abstract

Background The use of e-cigarettes has been increasing, especially since the introduction of ‘pod’ devices to the marketplace since 2018. Most adults who vape report interest in quitting. The present study examined level of interest in e-cigarette cessation between users with varying cigarette smoking histories and device types.

Methods Data obtained from wave 5 (2018–2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study (n=34 309). Analyses were conducted on adult current established e-cigarette users, categorised on cigarette smoking history (current, former or never) and device type (disposable, cartridge/pod, tank or mod). Participants reported if they planned to ever quit e-cigarettes, attempted to quit in the past year and attempted to quit by cutting back in the past year.

Results Of the 2922 established e-cigarette users, 68.21% reported plans to quit vaping; 17.27% reported attempting to quit e-cigarettes in the past year; and 29.28% reported attempting to quit by cutting back in the past year. Cartridge users had higher odds of interest in quitting than tank and mod users. Disposable and cartridge users had higher odds of reporting a past year quit attempt than tank and mod users. Individuals with no smoking history had higher odds of reporting a past year quit attempt or cutting back relative to those reporting dual use (of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes) and former smoking.

Conclusions Tobacco control should consider the type of e-cigarette device that is being used, alongside users’ cigarette smoking history, when developing interventions and other resources for vaping cessation.

  • electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • cessation
  • addiction

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2022-057710

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @amandapalmerphd, @eliask87

    • Contributors Conceptualisation: AMP, MJC, EMK and BAT; methodology: AMP and NLB; formal analysis: AMP and NLB; writing (original draft): AMP; writing (review and editing): AMP, AMR, MJC, EMK, BTS and BAT.

    • Funding This study was funded by NIH Institutional Postdoctoral Training Grant (NIH-T32-HL144470) and the Biostatistics Shared Resource, Hollings Cancer Center (P30 CA138313).

    • Competing interests In the past 3 years, BT has testified on behalf of plaintiffs who have filed litigation against the tobacco industry.

    • 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.