Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. METHODS: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. RESULTS: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4-35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5-25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9-4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities.

Prevalence and characteristics of co-occurrence of smoking and increasing-and-higher-risk drinking: A population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Smoking and drinking alcohol both significantly contribute to mortality and morbidity, and there is a need to characterise the sociodemographic and health-related characteristics (e.g. mental distress) of people who do both in order to target resources. This study reports the prevalence and characteristics of adults in the general population in England who both drink alcohol at increasing-and-higher-risk levels and smoke. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from a monthly, nationally representative survey of adults in England (n = 37,258; April 2020-March 2022). Weighted data were used to report prevalence and unweighted data were used to report descriptive statistics for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. RESULTS: The prevalence of both smoking and increasing-and-higher-risk drinking was 4.6% (95% CI = 4.4-4.9; n = 1,574). They smoked a mean of 10.4 (SD = 8.86) cigarettes per day and had a mean AUDIT score of 12.8 (SD = 5.18). Nearly half (48.2%, n = 751) were trying to cut down on their smoking and 28.0% (n = 441) on their drinking. A quarter (25.3%, n = 397) had received General Practitioner advice on smoking while 8.7% (n = 76) had received advice on their drinking. Nearly half (48.6%, n = 745) reported experiencing psychological distress in the past month and 44.6% (n = 529) had a diagnosed mental health condition, both of which were higher than among all adults (28.1% and 29.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In England, from April 2020 to March 2022, the prevalence of both smoking and increasing-and-higher-risk drinking was 4.6%. This group appears to experience high rates of mental health problems and targeted support is needed.

Practitioner and digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in people not seeking alcohol treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of practitioner versus digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis comprising comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials, robust screening and selection methods and appraisal with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using random effects, frequentist models. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to assess confidence in effect sizes. SETTING: Online or community or health settings where the intervention was immediately accessible without referral. PARTICIPANTS: Non treatment-seeking hazardous or harmful drinkers. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was mean difference in alcohol consumption (g/wk); secondary outcome was number of single high intensity drinking episodes. Baseline consumption was analysed as a covariate. FINDINGS: Of 201 included trials (94 753 participants), 152 reported a consumption outcome that could be converted to grams/week; 104 reported number of single high intensity drinking episodes. At 1 and 6 months, practitioner delivered interventions reduced consumption more than digitally delivered interventions (1 month: -23 g/wk (95% CI, -43 to -2); 6 months: -14 g/wk [95% CI, -25 to -3]). At 12 months there was no evidence of difference between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions (-6 g/wk [95% CI, -24 to 12]). There was no evidence of a difference in single high intensity drinking episodes between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions at any time point. Effect sizes were small, but could impact across a population with relatively high prevalence of hazardous and harmful drinking. Heterogeneity was a concern. Some inconsistency was indicated at 1 and 6 months, but little evidence was apparent at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Practitioner delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption are more effective than digitally delivered interventions up to 6 months; at 12 months there is no evidence of a difference.

Exploring changes in temporary abstinence in increasing and higher risk drinkers in England and Dry January participation in users of the Try Dry app in the UK between 2020 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: We looked at changes in the prevalence of increasing and higher risk drinkers reporting a reduction attempt motivated by temporary abstinence and changes in prevalence of use of the official app accompanying Dry January between 2020 vs 2021, following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explored potential shifts in the sociodemographic composition of both groups. METHODS: We analysed data from: i) 1863 increasing and higher risk drinkers (defined as ≥ 8 on the AUDIT) responding to a nationally representative survey of adults in England in January and February 2020 and 2021, and ii) 104,598 users of the 'Try Dry' app, the official aid to those participating in Dry January 2020 and 2021 in the UK. We used logistic regression to examine shifts in the prevalence of increasing and higher risk drinkers reporting a reduction attempt motivated by temporary abstinence and explored whether there were shifts in the characteristics of this group in terms of AUDIT score, number of last year reduction attempts, smoking status, living alone, living with children, reducing alcohol consumption due to future health motives, age, sex, and occupational social grade between 2020 and 2021. We used t-tests and chi-squared tests to compare the prevalence of users of the 'Try Dry' app in 2020 and 2021 and examine whether the two groups differed in terms of age and sex. RESULTS: The proportion of increasing and higher risk drinkers reporting a reduction attempt motivated by temporary abstinence increased from 4% in 2020 to 8% in 2021 (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.38-3.11, p < .001) with no changes detected in sociodemographic composition. The number of Try Dry app users in 2021 increased by 34.8% relative to 2020. App users in 2021 were two years older on average [p < .001, d = .02], with a 2% increase in the proportion of female app users [p < .001, vs. < .01]. CONCLUSIONS: Higher participation in Dry January 2021 relative to 2020 indicates increased engagement with a period of temporary abstinence following the COVID-19 related lockdowns in England and the UK, which is positive in the wider context of increasing alcohol consumption throughout the pandemic.

Prevalence and characteristics of hazardous and harmful drinkers receiving general practitioners' brief advice on and support with alcohol consumption in Germany: results of a population survey.

OBJECTIVE: The German treatment guideline on alcohol-related disorders recommends that general practitioners (GPs) offer brief advice on, and support with, reducing alcohol consumption to hazardous (at risk for health events) and harmful (exhibit health events) drinking patients. We aimed to estimate the implementation of this recommendation using general population data. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data (2021/2022) of a nationwide, population-based household survey. SETTING: Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of 2247 adult respondents who reported hazardous or harmful drinking according to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C; score women: 4-12 and men: 5-12). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ever receipt of 'brief GP advice on, or support with, reducing alcohol consumption'. Differences in the likelihood of ever receiving advice and/or support (yes/no) relative to respondents' sociodemographic, smoking and alcohol consumption characteristics were estimated using logistic regressions. RESULTS: Ever receipt of GP advice on/support with reducing drinking was reported among 6.3% (95% CI=5.3% to 7.4%), and the offer of support among 1.5% (95% CI=1.1% to 2.1%) of the hazardous and harmful drinking respondents. The likelihood of having ever received advice/support was positively associated with being older (OR=1.03 per year, 95% CI=1.01 to 1.04), a current or former (vs never) smoker (OR=2.36, 95% CI=1.46 to 3.80; OR=2.17, 95% CI=1.23 to 3.81) and with increasing alcohol consumption (OR=1.76 per score, 95% CI=1.59 to 1.95). One in two harmful drinking respondents (AUDIT-C score 10-12) reported appropriate advice/support. The likelihood was negatively associated with being woman (eg, OR=0.32, 95% CI=0.21 to 0.48), having a medium or high (vs low) education and with increasing household income. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of hazardous and harmful drinking people in Germany report having ever received GP advice on, or support with, reducing alcohol consumption. The implementation of advice/support seems to be linked to specific socio-demographic characteristics, tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption level. Health policy measures should aim to increase alcohol screening, brief intervention rates and awareness for at-risk populations in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00011322, DRKS00017157.

Characterising smoking and smoking cessation attempts by risk of alcohol dependence: A representative, cross-sectional study of adults in England between 2014-2021.

Background: There is a strong shared association between smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. This study aimed to compare smoking prevalence and smoking characteristics in drinkers who were versus were not at risk of alcohol dependence in England. Methods: We used cross-sectional data from a monthly, nationally representative survey of adults in England (weighted n=144,583) collected between 2014-2021. Smoking and smoking cessation attempt characteristics were regressed on to alcohol dependence (drinkers at risk versus not at risk), adjusting for survey year. Findings: Past-year smoking prevalence was 63·3% (95% CI=59·7-66·8) among drinkers at risk of alcohol dependence compared with 18·7% (95% CI=18·4-18·9) among those not at risk, and 19·2% (95% CI=18·8-19·7) among non-drinkers. Among past-year smokers, drinkers at risk of alcohol dependence (versus not at risk) smoked more cigarettes per day (B=3·0, 95% CI=2·3-3·8) and were more likely to smoke their first cigarette within 5 (versus >60) minutes of waking (OR=2·81, 95% CI=2·25-3·51). Interpretation: In a representative sample of adults in England, a graded effect was observed where smoking prevalence increased with level of alcohol consumption. Past-year smokers at risk of alcohol dependence had higher levels of cigarette dependence than drinkers not at risk. Therefore, smokers at risk of alcohol dependence are a high priority group to target to reduce smoking prevalence as part of the NHS long-term plan. Funding: Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research.

Potential Explanations for Conflicting Findings on Abrupt Versus Gradual Smoking Cessation: A Population Study in England.

INTRODUCTION: Observational and trial evidence conflict on the efficacy of two contrasting behavioral approaches to quitting smoking-gradual and abrupt. Observational data suggest an abrupt approach to quitting is superior to a gradual approach, whilst trials show no difference. One potential explanation is self-selection in observational data, whereby people can choose their quit approach, and those who find it harder to quit may be more likely to choose a gradual quit approach. This study aims to investigate potential explanations for these conflicting findings. AIMS AND METHODS: This study aims to investigate potential explanations for these conflicting findings. We used observational data from a nationally representative sample of adults in England from November 2006 to February 2020 who reported smoking and had made at least one quit attempt in the past year (n = 21 542). We used logistic regression models to assess the association between abrupt versus gradual quit attempts and quit success, adjusting for sociodemographic, smoking, and quit attempt characteristics. FINDINGS: Abrupt, versus gradual, attempts were associated with improved quit success in an unadjusted model (odds ratio = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.86 to 2.19). This association remained after adjusting for a broad range of relevant confounders (odds ratio = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.59 to 1.93). CONCLUSIONS: Among a representative sample of adults who had smoked and made a quit attempt in the past year, there was evidence of an association between abrupt attempts and quit success before and after adjusting for relevant confounders. This suggests that the differences in quit success seen between abrupt and gradual quit attempt types are not completely driven by self-selection in observational data. IMPLICATIONS: We investigated explanations for conflicting findings on the efficacy of gradual versus abrupt approaches to quitting smoking between trial and observational data. Despite adjusting observational data for sociodemographic, smoking, and quit attempt characteristics, an association between abrupt quitting and quit success remained. Therefore, differences in quit success were not completely driven by the self-selection of a gradual approach by people who found it especially difficult to quit or differences in the use of quitting aids. However, characteristics adjusted for were limited by the data available, and future research should continue to investigate the difference in findings across study types to inform cessation support.

Perceived risk factors for severe Covid-19 symptoms and their association with health behaviours: Findings from the HEBECO study.

Risk perceptions are important influences on health behaviours. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models to assess cross-sectionally risk perceptions for severe Covid-19 symptoms and their health behaviour correlates among 2206 UK adults from the HEBECO study. The great majority (89-99%) classified age 70+, having comorbidities, being a key worker, overweight, and from an ethnic minority as increasing the risk. People were less sure about alcohol drinking, vaping, and nicotine replacement therapy use (17.4-29.5% responding 'don't know'). Relative to those who did not, those who engaged in the following behaviours had higher odds of classifying these behaviours as (i) decreasing the risk: smoking cigarettes (adjusted odds ratios, aORs, 95% CI = 2.26, 1.39-3.37), and using e-cigarettes (aORs = 5.80, 3.25-10.34); (ii) having no impact: smoking cigarettes (1.98; 1.42-2.76), using e-cigarettes (aORs = 2.63, 1.96-3.50), drinking alcohol (aORs = 1.75, 1.31-2.33); and lower odds of classifying these as increasing the risk: smoking cigarettes (aORs: 0.43, 0.32-0.56), using e-cigarettes (aORs = 0.25, 0.18-0.35). Similarly, eating more fruit and vegetables was associated with classifying unhealthy diet as 'increasing risk' (aOR = 1.37, 1.12-1.69), and exercising more with classifying regular physical activity as 'decreasing risk' (aOR = 2.42, 1.75-3.34). Risk perceptions for severe Covid-19 among UK adults were lower for their own health behaviours, evidencing optimism bias. These risk perceptions may form barriers to changing people's own unhealthy behaviours, make them less responsive to interventions that refer to the risk of Covid-19 as a motivating factor, and exacerbate inequalities in health behaviours and outcomes.

Association of the COVID-19 lockdown with smoking, drinking and attempts to quit in England: an analysis of 2019-20 data.

AIM: To examine changes in smoking, drinking and quitting/reduction behaviour following the COVID-19 lockdown in England. DESIGN/SETTING: Monthly cross-sectional surveys representative of the adult population in England, aggregated before (April 2019-February 2020) versus after (April 2020) lockdown. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 558 adults (≥ 16 years). MEASUREMENTS: The independent variable was the timing of the COVID-19 lockdown (before versus after March 2020). Dependent variables were: prevalence of smoking and high-risk drinking, past-year cessation and quit attempts (among past-year smokers), past-year attempts to reduce alcohol consumption (among high-risk drinkers) and use of evidence-based (e.g. prescription medication/face-to-face behavioural support) and remote support [telephone support/websites/applications (apps)] for smoking cessation and alcohol reduction (among smokers/high-risk drinkers who made a quit/reduction attempt). Covariates included age, sex, social grade, region and level of nicotine and alcohol dependence (as relevant). FINDINGS: The COVID-19 lockdown was not associated with a significant change in smoking prevalence [17.0% (after) versus 15.9% (before), odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.95-1.24], but was associated with increases in quit attempts [39.6 versus 29.1%, adjusted odds ratio (ORadj ) = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.23-1.98], quit success (21.3 versus 13.9%, ORadj  = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.22-3.33) and cessation (8.8 versus 4.1%, ORadj  = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.69-4.09) among past-year smokers. Among smokers who tried to quit, there was no significant change in use of evidence-based support (50.0 versus 51.5%, ORadj  = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.72-1.68) but use of remote support increased (10.9 versus 2.7%, ORadj  = 3.59, 95% CI = 1.56-8.23). Lockdown was associated with increases in high-risk drinking (38.3 versus 25.1%, OR = 1.85, CI = 1.67-2.06), but also alcohol reduction attempts by high-risk drinkers (28.5 versus 15.3%, ORadj  = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.77-2.64). Among high-risk drinkers who made a reduction attempt, use of evidence-based support decreased (1.2 versus 4.0%, ORadj  = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.05-0.97) and there was no significant change in use of remote support (6.9 versus 6.1%, ORadj  = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.64-2.75). CONCLUSIONS: Following the March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, smokers and high-risk drinkers in England were more likely than before lockdown to report trying to quit smoking or reduce alcohol consumption and rates of smoking cessation and use of remote cessation support were higher. However, high-risk drinking prevalence increased post-lockdown and use of evidence-based support for alcohol reduction by high-risk drinkers decreased with no compensatory increase in use of remote support.

Prevalence and correlates of receipt by smokers of general practitioner advice on smoking cessation in England: a cross-sectional survey of adults.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advice from a general practitioner (GP) can encourage smokers to quit. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and correlates of receipt of GP advice on smoking, what type of advice and support was offered and characteristics and quitting activity associated with different types of advice. DESIGN/SETTING: Data were collected between 2016 and 2019 in a series of monthly cross-sectional surveys of representative samples of the adult population in England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11 588 past-year smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Participants reported whether they had received advice or offer of support for smoking cessation from their GP in the last year. Socio-demographic and behavioural characteristics and past-year quit attempts and cessation were also recorded. FINDINGS: One in two [47.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 46.1-48.3%] past-year smokers who reported visiting their GP in the last year recalled receiving advice on smoking, and one in three (30.1%, 95% CI = 29.1-31.1%) reported being offered cessation support. The most common form of support offered was stop smoking services (16.5%, 95% CI = 15.7-17.3%) followed by prescription medication (8.1%, 95% CI = 7.5-8.7%); 3.7% (95% CI = 3.3-4.1%) reported having been recommended to use e-cigarettes. Smokers who were older, non-white, more addicted, and smoked five or more cigarettes/day had consistently higher odds of receiving advice or support. There were some differences by region, housing tenure, presence of children in the home and high-risk drinking in the types of advice/support received. There were no significant differences by sex, occupational social grade, disability, type of cigarettes smoked, or survey year. Advice with any offer of support was associated with higher odds of attempting to quit than advice alone [adjusted odds ratio (ORadj ) = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.30-1.76]. Advice alone was associated with higher odds of quit attempts than no advice in smokers with higher (ORadj  = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.10-1.64) but not lower occupational social grade (ORadj  = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.75-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: In England, a minority of smokers receive support from their GP to stop smoking. Those who do are more likely to be older, non-white and more addicted to cigarettes. Advice plus offer of support appears to be associated with increased odds of making a quit attempt, while advice without offer of support appears only to be associated with increased odds of making a quit attempt in higher occupational social grade smokers.

Changes in smoker characteristics in England between 2008 and 2017.

AIMS: At a time of declining smoking prevalence in England, it is useful to document any changes in the characteristics of smokers. This has implications for targeting tobacco control policies and interventions. This study compared the characteristics of smokers from 2008 to 2017 to assess changes in smoking and quitting patterns and socio-demographic profile. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of annual trends in results from repeated cross-sectional surveys of representative samples of the population in England from 2008 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 208 813 adults aged 16+. MEASUREMENTS: Information was gathered on age, sex, social grade and region, cigarette consumption, cigarette dependence as measured by time to first cigarette of the day, daily smoking, smoking roll-your-own cigarettes, attempts to cut down, use of an e-cigarette or nicotine replacement therapy, attempts to cut down or quit, use of support in quit attempts and whether the quit attempt was abrupt. FINDINGS: During the period, mean daily cigarette consumption [B = -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.33 to -0.27] and the time to first cigarette score decreased (B = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.03 to -0.02). The proportion of smokers attempting to cut down or quit decreased (odds ratio (OR) range = 0.96-0.97, 95% CI range = 0.95-0.97). Use of behavioural support [odds ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.86-0.92] or no support decreased (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96-0.99), while use of pharmacological support, including e-cigarettes, increased (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.02-1.05). There was no significant change in the difference in social grade between smokers and non-smokers comparing 2008 with 2017. Changes in smoking and quitting behaviour were independent of changes in socio-demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2008 and 2017 in England, smokers appear to have become less dependent on cigarettes but less likely to try to quit or cut down. Of those who tried to quit, fewer used behavioural support and more used pharmacological support. The proportion from more disadvantaged backgrounds did not change significantly.

Understanding the Association Between Spontaneous Quit Attempts and Improved Smoking Cessation Success Rates: A Population Survey in England With 6-Month Follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Almost half of smoking quit attempts are "spontaneous" (initiated as soon as the decision to quit has been made) and are associated with increased success rates. This study aimed to assess to what extent other factors may account for this association. METHODS: Data were used from respondents to a survey representative of the adult population in England from 2006 to 2016. We included 2018 respondents who were current smokers at baseline and had attempted to quit between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Logistic regression models assessed the association between quit success and spontaneous quit attempts while adjusting for smoking, sociodemographic, and quit attempt characteristics. RESULTS: Spontaneous quit attempts were associated with greater odds of quit success (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.60) but the association was not significant in the fully adjusted model (ORadj = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.49). In this adjusted model, those who attempted to quit without cutting down first (ORadj = 3.08, 95% CI = 2.46 to 3.88) and were male (ORadj = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.80) had greater odds of success; although a greater number of attempts in the past 6 months, stronger urges to smoke (strong vs. none), higher daily cigarette consumption, and lower social grade (E vs. AB) were associated with lower odds of success (ORadj range = 0.32-0.98, p < .030). Quit attempts made without cutting down first were correlated with spontaneous quit attempts (r = .150, p < .001) and appeared to account for the diminished association between spontaneous quitting and success (ORadj = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.46). CONCLUSIONS: The increased success rate of spontaneous quit attempts appears to be because spontaneous quit attempts are more likely to be made without cutting down first. IMPLICATIONS: The apparent benefit of spontaneous over planned quit attempts may be attributable to the former being more likely to involve quitting without cutting down first (ie, abrupt cessation) than cutting down first (ie, gradual cessation) and so this may be a more useful target for advice to improve the chances of successful quitting.

Trends in and Correlates of Use of Roll-Your-Own Cigarettes: A Population Study in England 2008-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the use of cheaper roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes may have implications for tobacco tax policy. We examined trends in RYO cigarette use in England between 2008 and 2017, and characterized users' sociodemographic and smoking profiles. METHODS: We used data from 211 469 respondents to a survey representative of the adult (≥16 years) population. In current smokers across the entire study period (n = 43 389), we assessed multivariable associations between cigarette type (RYO or factory-made [FM]) and sociodemographic and smoking characteristics. Among current smokers in 2008 and 2017 (n = 7685), we tested interactions between year and cigarette type to assess the stability of each characteristic. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2017, FM cigarette use declined from 15.3% to 9.2% whereas RYO use increased from 6.7% to 8.1%. Greater odds of RYO use were observed among younger, male smokers from lower social grades, who were more addicted and used electronic cigarettes (ORrange = 1.28-1.86, p < .001). Lower odds of RYO use were observed among nondaily smokers, those with high motivation to stop, and higher spending on smoking (ORrange = 0.46-0.89, p ≤ .001). The RYO smoker profile was relatively stable between 2008 and 2017. However, compared with FM use, RYO use increased in younger (p < .001) and female (p = .019) smokers, and there was a relatively smaller decline in the proportion cutting down or trying to quit (p = .004). CONCLUSION: In England, RYO use increased when overall smoking prevalence and FM use decreased. The profile of RYO smokers remained relatively stable, with users typically younger, male, more addicted, deprived, spending less on smoking, and less inclined to quit than FM smokers. IMPLICATIONS: This population-based study provides novel insight into recent trends in RYO use in England, providing an up-to-date understanding of the profile of RYO smokers. Without the consistent application of tax across the range of combustible products, smokers who are more dependent are able to capitalize on the lower cost of RYO in order to continue smoking, undermining the potential benefit of taxation on cessation.

Associations between smoking status and bodily pain in a cross-sectional survey of UK respondents.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that ex- and current smokers report increased levels of bodily pain compared with never smokers. This could be secondary to smoking-related disease or psychological characteristics of smokers, or it could be a neurological or vascular effect of a period of regular smoking. AIMS: We compared self-reported levels of bodily pain in daily, never daily and former daily smokers stratified by age group and adjusting for a wider range of covariates than has been undertaken to-date, including health status, neuroticism, anxiety and depression. METHOD: 223,537 UK respondents aged 16+ years were surveyed between 2009 and 2013 in the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Lab UK Study. Respondents provided information on bodily pain, smoking status and a range of sociodemographic, health, behavioural and psychological characteristics. RESULTS: After adjusting for all covariates, in 16-34-year-olds, reported levels of bodily pain in former daily smokers (Badj = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.30, 1.15, p < .001) and daily smokers (Badj = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.82, p < .01) were higher than in never daily smokers. Reported levels of bodily pain were also higher in former daily smokers than in never daily smokers in those aged 35-64 (Badj = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.69, 1.38, p < .001) and 65 + years (Badj = 1.65, 95% CI = 0.07, 3.24, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for key characteristics, former daily smokers reported higher levels of bodily pain compared with never daily smokers at all ages. This raises the possibility that a period of smoking may have lasting effects on pain experiences.

Associations between self-esteem and smoking and excessive alcohol consumption in the UK: A cross-sectional study using the BBC UK Lab database.

INTRODUCTION: There is mixed evidence regarding the associations between self-esteem and smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. This study aimed to investigate whether self-esteem is associated with smoking status and alcohol consumption in a large sample of adults in the United Kingdom after adjusting for age, sex, socio-economic status and depressed mood. METHODS: Design: Cross-sectional correlational study conducted under the aegis of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) between 2009 and 2013.Participants: 187,398 respondents (67.9% female) with a mean age of 32.82 years (SD = 12.41) providing complete data.Setting: UK. MEASURES: Online self-report questionnaire. The outcomes were smoking status (current smoker, ever smoker) and alcohol consumption (current drinker, excessive drinker); the input variable was self-esteem measured using a Single Item Self-Esteem Scale; covariates were age, sex, SES, and depressed mood measured using a single item question. RESULTS: The odds of being an ever smoker and a current smoker were greater in people with lower self-esteem (AdjOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99, Cohen's d = -0.02; and AdjOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.94-0.99, Cohen's d = -0.02 respectively). The odds of being a current drinker were lower in people with lower self-esteem (AdjOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17-1.24, Cohen's d = 0.10) while being an excessive drinker was associated with lower self-esteem (ß = -0.13, p < 0.001, F(5, 187392) = 997.14, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Lower self-esteem appears to be positively associated with ever- and current smoking and excessive alcohol consumption and negatively associated with current alcohol consumption.

Trends in and factors associated with the adoption of digital aids for smoking cessation and alcohol reduction: A population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Digital smoking cessation and alcohol reduction aids are widely available in England. To estimate their public health impact, researchers need to consider their adoption in the target population. We assessed adoption rates, and characteristics of adopters, of digital smoking cessation and alcohol reduction aids in England. METHODS: 3655 smokers and 2998 high-risk drinkers (defined as a score of >4 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption; AUDIT-C) who had made a past-year quit/reduction attempt were surveyed as part of the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Studies between January 2015-October 2018. Respondents provided information on socio-demographic characteristics and whether they had used a digital aid in a recent quit/reduction attempt. RESULTS: 2.7 % (95 % CI 2.2%-3.0%) of smokers and 3.6 % (95 % CI 2.9%-4.0%) of drinkers who had made a past-year quit/reduction attempt (26.9 % and 15.3 %, respectively) had used a digital aid. Survey year was not significantly associated with use in smokers or drinkers. None of the baseline characteristics were significantly associated with the use of a digital aid in smokers. Drinkers with high motivation to reduce alcohol consumption (ORadj = 2.49, 95 % CI 1.63-3.77, p < .001) and higher AUDIT scores (ORadj = 1.07, 95 % CI 1.03-1.11, p < .001) had greater odds of adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Digital smoking cessation and alcohol reduction aids are rarely used by smokers or high-risk drinkers attempting to quit/cut down in England, indicating that most of the target population is not being reached. Despite overall digital access improving, adoption rates remained similarly low between 2015-2018.