An Examination of Device Types and Features Used by Adult Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Users in the PATH Study, 2015–2016
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Disclaimer
References
- Brown, C.J.; Cheng, J.M. Electronic cigarettes: Product characterisation and design considerations. Tob. Control 2014, 23 (Suppl. 2), ii4–ii10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lechner, W.V.; Meier, E.; Wiener, J.L.; Grant, D.M.; Gilmore, J.; Judah, M.R.; Mills, A.C.; Wagener, T.L. The comparative efficacy of first-versus second-generation electronic cigarettes in reducing symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Addiction 2015, 110, 862–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vansickel, A.R.; Eissenberg, T. Electronic cigarettes: Effective nicotine delivery after acute administration. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2013, 15, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alexander, J.A.; Williams, P.; Coleman, B.; Johnson, S.E. A qualitative examination of the ENDS experience by device type: cigalike and tank users’ attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. Tob. Regul. Sci. 2018, 4, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, B.N.; Rostron, B.; Johnson, S.E.; Ambrose, B.K.; Pearson, J.; Stanton, C.A.; Wang, B.; Delnevo, C.; Bansal-Travers, M.; Kimmel, H.L.; et al. Electronic cigarette use among US adults in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013–2014. Tob. Control 2017, 26, e117–e126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hitchman, S.C.; Brose, L.S.; Brown, J.; Robson, D.; McNeill, A. Associations between e-cigarette type, frequency of use, and quitting smoking: findings from a longitudinal online panel survey in Great Britain. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2015, 17, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, C.; Zhuang, Y.L.; Zhu, S.H. E-cigarette design preference and smoking cessation: A US population study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 51, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dawkins, L.; Kimber, C.; Puwanesarasa, Y.; Soar, K. First-versus second-generation electronic cigarettes: Predictors of choice and effects on urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. Addiction 2015, 110, 669–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yingst, J.M.; Veldheer, S.; Hrabovsky, S.; Nichols, T.T.; Wilson, S.; Foulds, J. Factors associated with electronic cigarette users’ device preferences and transition from first to advanced generation devices. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2015, 17, 1242–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hyland, A.; Ambrose, B.K.; Conway, K.P.; Borek, N.; Lambert, E.; Carusi, C.; Taylor, K.; Crosse, S.; Fong, G.T.; Cummings, K.M.; et al. Design and methods of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Tob. Control 2017, 26, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Breland, A.; Soule, E.; Lopez, A.; Ramôa, C.; El-Hellani, A.; Eissenberg, T. Electronic cigarettes: what are they and what do they do? Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 2017, 1394, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goniewicz, M.L.; Kuma, T.; Gawron, M.; Knysak, J.; Kosmider, L. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nic. Tob. Res. 2013, 15, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Overall (n = 2671) | Closed Systems a (n = 1153) | Open Systems b (n = 1446) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
% (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | ||
Sex | <0.0001 | |||
Males | 55.2 (52.9, 57.4) | 48.4 (45.2, 51.7) | 60.7 (57.9, 63.5) | |
Females | 44.8 (42.6, 47.1) | 51.6 (48.3, 54.8) | 39.3 (36.5, 42.1) | |
Age group (years) | <0.0001 | |||
18–24 | 26.4 (24.6, 28.4) | 21.4 (19.1, 24.0) | 30.4 (27.2, 33.3) | |
25–34 | 26.3 (24.3, 28.4) | 26.5 (23.3, 29.9) | 25.9 (23.2, 28.8) | |
35–44 | 17.6 (15.9, 19.4) | 15.7 (13.4, 18.4) | 19.2 (16.9, 21.7) | |
45–54 | 13.7 (12.2, 15.3) | 15.0 (12.9, 17.4) | 12.7 (10.8, 14.9) | |
55–64 | 11 (9.7, 12.5) | 14.4 (12.0, 17.2) | 8.4 (7.0, 10.0) | |
65+ | 5.0 (3.9, 6.5) | 7.0 (5.1, 9.4) | 3.4 (2.2, 5.3) | |
Race/ethnicity | <0.0001 | |||
White, non-Hispanic | 71.1 (68.8, 73.4) | 65.4 (61.8, 68.8) | 76.2 (73.4, 78.9) | |
Black, non-Hispanic | 9.4 (8.1, 10.8) | 12.3 (10.3, 14.5) | 6.5 (5.1, 8.3) | |
Asian, non-Hispanic | 2.9 (2.0, 4.2) | 3.4 (2.0, 5.6) | 2.6 (1.6, 4.2) | |
Other, non-Hispanic | 3.9 (3.2, 4.8) | 3.6 (2.6, 4.8) | 4.2 (3.3, 5.5) | |
Hispanic | 12.7 (11.4, 14.1) | 15.4 (13.2, 17.8) | 10.4 (8.9, 12.1) | |
Education | ||||
Less than high school diploma | 12.4 (11.1, 14.0) | 12.4 (10.4, 14.8) | 12.3 (10.5, 14.5) | 0.0978 |
GED | 8.2 (7.1, 9.4) | 9.3 (7.5, 11.4) | 7.3 (5.8, 9.1) | |
High school diploma | 25.6 (23.5, 27.9) | 26.2 (23.3, 29.3) | 25.0 (22.1, 28.1) | |
Some college/associate’s degree | 40.3 (38.2, 42.4) | 37.4 (34.2, 40.7) | 43.0 (40.2, 45.7) | |
Bachelor’s degree or more | 13.4 (11.9, 15.0) | 14.8 (12.3, 17.6) | 12.5 (10.8, 14.4) | |
Income c | 0.0366 | |||
<100% of the FPL | 37.5 (34.8, 40.2) | 40.6 (36.8, 44.5) | 34.4 (31.1, 37.8) | |
100%–199% of the FPL | 26.1 (24.1, 28.3) | 25.7 (22.3, 29.3) | 26.7 (23.8, 29.7) | |
≥200% of the FPL | 36.4 (33.9, 39.0) | 33.7 (30.3, 37.4) | 39.0 (35.5, 42.5) | |
Current use of other combusted products d | <0.0001 | |||
Yes | 31.6 (29.1, 34.2) | 37.2 (33.9, 40.8) | 26.5 (23.5, 29.9) | |
Current use of non-combusted products e | 0.7856 | |||
Yes | 8.8 (7.5, 10.4) | 9.2 (7.0, 12.1) | 8.6 (7.0, 10.4) |
Overall (n = 2671) | Closed Systems a (n = 1153) | Open Systems b (n = 1446) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
% (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | ||
Prevalence | 5.0 (4.7, 5.3) | 2.2 (2.0, 2.4) | 2.7 (2.6, 2.9) | |
Overall | -- | 43.9 (41.3, 46.4) | 53.7 (51.1, 56.2) | |
Year(s) since first used ENP c | 0.9279 | |||
0 | 31.3 (27.8, 35.0) | 29.7 (23.8, 36.4) | 32 (27.8, 36.5) | |
1 | 36.1 (32.6, 39.7) | 36.1 (30.6, 42.0) | 35.3 (31.8, 41.1) | |
2–3 | 25.6 (22.2, 29.4) | 26.6 (20.6, 33.7) | 25.1 (21.3, 29.2) | |
4–5 | 3.4 (2.3, 5.0) | 3.2 (1.4, 6.9) | 3.4 (2.2, 5.4) † | |
6+ | 3.6 (2.2, 5.7) | 4.4 (2.2, 8.7) † | 3.2 (1.6, 6.1) † | |
Frequency of use | <0.0001 | |||
Daily | 34.0 (31.8, 36.3) | 22.5 (19.9, 25.3) | 44.1 (40.9, 47.3) | |
Non-daily | 66.0 (63.7, 68.2) | 77.5 (74.7, 80.1) | 55.9 (52.7, 59.1) | |
Cigarette smoking status | <0.0001 | |||
Current daily smoker | 40.5 (38.3, 42.7) | 48.0 (44.5, 51.4) | 34.3 (31.7, 37.3) | |
Current non-daily smoker | 18.4 (16.9, 20.1) | 16.0 (13.7, 18.6) | 20.3 (17.9, 23.0) | |
Recent former (≤ 1 year) | 8.0 (6.8, 9.3) | 5.6 (4.3, 7.4) | 9.9 (8.2, 11.9) | |
Long-term former (>1 year) | 15.8 (14.0, 17.8) | 10.9 (9.1, 13.0) | 20.2 (17.3, 23.3) | |
Never smoker | 17.3 (15.5, 19.3) | 19.5 (16.5, 23.0) | 15.2 (13.2, 17.4) | |
ENP contains nicotine d | <0.0001 | |||
Yes | 78.4 (76.2, 80.4) | 71.8 (68.2, 75.0) | 84.7 (82.6, 86.6) | |
Flavors used in the past 30 days | <0.0001 | |||
Tobacco flavor | 24.7 (22.1, 27.5) | 37.4 (33.2, 41.8) | 15.7 (13.2, 18.6) | |
Menthol or mint | 19.4 (17.6, 21.2) | 25.7 (22.3, 29.5) | 15.0 (13.0, 17.2) | |
Fruit/sweet/spice/alcohol flavor e | 54.0 (51.2, 56.8) | 34.8 (30.8, 39.1) | 67.8 (64.6, 70.8) | |
Some other flavor (specify) | 1.9 (1.4, 2.7) | 2.1 (1.3, 3.4) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.4) | |
Ability to change voltage of their device f | <0.0001 | |||
Yes | 53.0 (50.1, 55.8) | 24.8 (21.2, 28.8) | 68.1 (64.9, 71.1) | |
No | 35.8 (32.9, 38.6) | 56.3 (51.2, 61.3) | 25.3 (22.6, 28.3) | |
Don’t know | 11.2 (9.7, 13.0) | 18.9 (15.2, 23.3) | 6.6 (5.3, 8.3) | |
Changes voltage of their device g | 0.0226 | |||
Yes | 71.7 (68.3, 75.0) | 61.6 (52.5, 69.9) | 73.5 (69.7, 77.0) | |
No | 24.8 (21.6, 28.3) | 33 (25.4, 41.7) | 23.4 (20.1, 27.2) | |
Don’t know | 3.4 (2.1, 5.5) | 5.4 (2.9, 9.9) † | 3.0 (1.7, 5.4) † | |
Endorsed using ENDs because “[ENDS] helps people quit smoking cigarettes” h | <0.0001 | |||
Yes | 71.8 (69.7, 73.9) | 62.6 (58.3, 66.8) | 80.4 (77.3, 83.2) | |
Uses [ENDS] as a way of cutting down on cigarette smoking i | <0.0001 | |||
Yes | 69.5 (66.9, 72.0) | 59.7 (55.8, 63.5) | 79.1 (76.1, 81.8) | |
Time to first [ENDS] within 30 min of waking | 0.1438 | |||
Yes | 43 (40.6, 45.6) | 44.4 (40.9, 48.0) | 41.0 (37.9, 44.3) | |
Considers themselves addicted to [ENDS] j | 0.0001 | |||
No, not at all | 63.2 (60.4, 66.0) | 70.5 (66.1, 74.6) | 58.6 (55.1, 62.1) | |
Yes, somewhat addicted | 29.9 (27.3, 32.6) | 22.1 (18.9, 25.7) | 34.7 (31.3, 38.3) | |
Yes, very addicted | 6.9 (5.4, 8.7) | 7.4 (4.5, 12.0) | 6.7 (5.3, 8.3) | |
Quit attempt of ENP in the past year k | <0.0001 | |||
Yes | 12.8 (11.1, 14.7) | 16.3 (13.3, 19.8) | 10.5 (8.7, 12.6) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Coleman, B.; Chang, J.T.; Rostron, B.L.; Johnson, S.E.; Das, B.; Del Valle-Pinero, A.Y. An Examination of Device Types and Features Used by Adult Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Users in the PATH Study, 2015–2016. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132329
Coleman B, Chang JT, Rostron BL, Johnson SE, Das B, Del Valle-Pinero AY. An Examination of Device Types and Features Used by Adult Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Users in the PATH Study, 2015–2016. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(13):2329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132329
Chicago/Turabian StyleColeman, Blair, Joanne T. Chang, Brian L. Rostron, Sarah E. Johnson, Babita Das, and Arseima Y. Del Valle-Pinero. 2019. "An Examination of Device Types and Features Used by Adult Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Users in the PATH Study, 2015–2016" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 13: 2329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132329